WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=OEj0gn5s1UI

Part: 1

1
00:06:53.120 --> 00:07:08.160
All right, we're going to start here in a couple minutes. Uh just in the interim for all the uh citizens in the room. Uh if you want to sign up to speak, please fill out the paper form and bring it up here to my in your right um and hand it to Laura at the computer. Um, you can

2
00:07:08.160 --> 00:08:40.719
fill out the paper form or scan the QR code. Either one works. We just ask that you do that before the commission meeting starts and before the case is heard. All right, we're going to we're going to get started. The announcements usually take a few minutes and and we got some some announcements today. Uh good

3
00:08:40.719 --> 00:08:55.680
morning. Hope everyone had a good July 4th and is surviving the World Cup. Uh welcome to the Urban Design Commission meeting for Thursday, July 16th. The Urban Design Commission requires a quorum of six members to be present and available for voting. The following members are present today. Chairman

4
00:08:55.680 --> 00:09:09.920
Benner, Commissioner Carr, Commissioner Deose, Commissioner Holidayiday, Commissioner Hughes, Vice Chair Ramsey, and Commissioner Reid. Did I miss anyone? >> All right. Staff present today are Jefferson Prada Ortiz, Laura Young,

5
00:09:09.920 --> 00:09:26.399
Caleb Olsen, uh Francisco Vega, Incor, Chris Austria, and uh myself, Joseph Laws. Today's meeting agenda and docket can be found online at www.fortworthex.gov. Speaker registration forms must have been turned in prior to the start of the

6
00:09:26.399 --> 00:09:42.080
meeting. Attendees can sign up to speak by completing the paper form or scanning the QR code outside. Today's public hearing is being documented by cable television and video conference recording which will be available on the city's website. Um not to diverge too much, but we are also

7
00:09:42.080 --> 00:09:58.880
live streaming right now too, so you really can't cuss now. Um, to achieve a timely and orderly meeting, the UDC requests the following rules of procedure be respected. Number one, each case will be called in the sequence listed on the agenda unless otherwise directed by the chair. Number two, all

8
00:09:58.880 --> 00:10:14.000
ensuing dialogue shall be directed to the UDC only. Number three, after staff presentation, the applicant and any other proponents will be given a total of seven minutes to speak. Opposition may then speak for seven minutes. Continuation beyond the speaker's allotted time will be subject to the

9
00:10:14.000 --> 00:10:30.480
chair's sole discretion and approval. Number four, speakers may come to the podium to my left, the commission's right to present. All other meeting procedures will adhere to the UDC adopted rules of procedure to the extent practicable. And uh number six, following the official close of each case hearing, the

10
00:10:30.480 --> 00:10:46.079
UDC will remain in open session to discuss and vote upon the item in question. During this time, no further public testimony or commentary will be allowed unless directed by the chair. Number seven, a closed executive session may be held with respect to posted agenda items to enable the UDC to

11
00:10:46.079 --> 00:11:06.000
receive advice from legal staff. For additional information on any case on today's agenda, you may contact the Development Services Department by calling 817392800. Thank you for your attention and welcome to the Fort Worth Urban Design Commission meeting for July 16th, 2026.

12
00:11:06.000 --> 00:11:21.440
Mr. Chair, will you please call this meeting to order? >> Good morning everybody. We are called to order. Uh, welcome to the July meeting of the UDC. Any announcements this morning? >> We do. Um, we have a bunch of announcements. Um, our ambassadors, our

13
00:11:21.440 --> 00:11:37.839
interns are not here. They're running a bit late this morning, but our two interns, Jonathan and Diego, this is their last one that you may see them coming at partway through this hearing. Uh, the city's ambassador or internship program is only two months. So, they show up one meeting and then they're they're gone the next. They grow up very

14
00:11:37.839 --> 00:11:54.480
fast. Um, we have some staff announcements as well. We want to welcome uh Nathan Beville. Uh, he's back here um in the blue. He's our new senior planner for historic preservation. Mostly focused in on historic preservation, but given the overlap with the urban design districts and forbased

15
00:11:54.480 --> 00:12:10.959
codes, you guys may see him uh present to you in the future. Also, we want to welcome or rewelcome Francisco Vega, who's our new interim planning manager over here. Um, welcome. I believe Francisco has presented to the

16
00:12:10.959 --> 00:12:27.040
UDC before related to Panther Island uh form-based code and some signage things. Um, he's still doing his other full-time job of being the senior planner for downtown, you know, doing what I do for the urban for the downtown review board. He's still doing that in addition to the

17
00:12:27.040 --> 00:12:45.440
interim planning manager role. Um, a couple of other announcements. I believe the commission, you all should have received an email about this. Uh APA Texas is doing a commissioner training um in August uh over at North Richland Hills. It's a good opportunity. Uh did

18
00:12:45.440 --> 00:13:01.519
you guys receive the email? Okay, cool. Uh wasn't getting many visual cues there. Um so uh it's a good opportunity to uh hear from APA Texas about the role of commissioners in the development process. And additionally, kind of

19
00:13:01.519 --> 00:13:18.480
speaking to APA Texas, they have their uh annual conference October 14th through 16 in Irving. Uh the call for proposals for that was pushed back to later this month. So if anyone wants to uh present at that, we we certainly encourage that. And uh lastly, Community

20
00:13:18.480 --> 00:13:33.760
Design Fort Worth, a local nonprofit, is continuing their transit academy. It happens, it shifts between the second and third Wednesday every month. You can go to community design Fort Worth to find out more about that, but it's a good opportunity to learn about the region's local transit systems, the

21
00:13:33.760 --> 00:13:48.959
different uh programs, policies, and priorities that the community is taking to promote public transit. That's all the announcements we have. Thank you. Minutes from last month. We have a

22
00:13:48.959 --> 00:14:05.839
motion to approve those. >> Move approval. >> Second. All right, we have a motion to approve the June 18th meeting minutes from Commissioner Dose and a second from Commissioner Ramsey. All those in favor? >> I.

23
00:14:05.839 --> 00:14:20.880
>> Any opposed? >> All right, motion passes 70. Uh, we don't have any continuing cases, so we're going to go on to new cases. And, um, today we're starting with a couple of UFC ones. Um, so I'm going to bring up Caleb, who works with the urban

24
00:14:20.880 --> 00:14:52.320
forestry team to present these two. Good morning. My name is Kale Bolson. I'm the senior plans examiner on the urban forestry team. Um we have two items to present to you guys today. The first one is UDC case number UDC-26-135 and the urban forestry permit number is

25
00:14:52.320 --> 00:15:12.000
UFC26-000054. This is for 791 Edville Road in Council District 5. The zoning is G. The owner and agent are 786 Investment LLC and Javeed Haidider. And the request is a request for certificate of appropriateness from urban forestry

26
00:15:12.000 --> 00:15:30.880
ordinances 25% preservation requirement for protected species trees to allow a 0% tree preservation requirement. All right. So this is just an existing aerial of the site on our zoning map. Um you can see the adjacent zonings. Got a

27
00:15:30.880 --> 00:15:50.240
lot of G some E across Ederville. Um PD 809 over here. the property. It's 1.34 acres and it's currently undeveloped with this existing drive that connects Ederville to this operating gas station here.

28
00:15:50.240 --> 00:16:07.279
Um, this is the existing canopy. So, there are 19 protected species trees on site. You can see here the the actual canopy area on site is about 10,700 square feet, but the majority of those trees are nonprotected species. This is

29
00:16:07.279 --> 00:16:21.519
coming in under the current urban forestry ordinance. So, our ordinance takes into account species. So, there's really only 19 trees on site. They are all post oak trees, but they're all between the six to 10 inch diameter and

30
00:16:21.519 --> 00:16:39.920
breast height or DBH range. Um, so not mature post oaks. And the total canopy area for just the protected species trees is a little over 1,400 square feet. I'll pull the numbers up at the end. That's 1,48.

31
00:16:39.920 --> 00:16:55.600
Typically, they'd be required to preserve half of that area since all of the existing canopy is post oaks. Our current ordinance post oaks and blackjack oaks get treated a little special because those are trees that we can actively replace. Effectively all the post oaks we have in Fort Worth is

32
00:16:55.600 --> 00:17:10.240
all the post oaks we'll ever have in Fort Worth. Um so they get treated a little differently. The requirement would be 50% preservation. The main driving force behind the request.

33
00:17:10.240 --> 00:17:28.720
Um the location most of the trees are located pretty centrally but the main driving force is the grading that's going to be required. So, it's a little difficult to make out, but from the northwest corner to the southeast corner, the grade goes from 566 feet to

34
00:17:28.720 --> 00:17:44.640
like 548. So, there's the gradient over the site is basically 18 feet of grade change. Um, this plan in particular, it's a little bit tough to make out again because of the size, but we have retaining walls here, retaining wall

35
00:17:44.640 --> 00:18:00.000
here. This whole thing around here is a retaining wall. So to develop the site, they're going to have significant grading challenges that they're going to have to face. And again, based on the location of the existing trees, there's really no existing trees that are good

36
00:18:00.000 --> 00:18:17.840
candidates for preservation. So we'll get into the proposed canopy coverage. Um the required canopy coverage for this site is 17,474 square feet. Um, their proposed canopy

37
00:18:17.840 --> 00:18:35.600
is actually 24,550 square feet. So, we have eight proposed cedar elms in the green here. Those are all large species trees. They get 2,000 square feet of credit. 12 proposed Chinese pistache. I believe this is fuchsia. Um, those are all medium

38
00:18:35.600 --> 00:18:52.320
species trees. They get 700 square feet of credit each. And then 15 crepe myrtles in the light blue. Those are all small species trees. those each get 100 square feet of canopy credit each. Um we'll get into the numbers here. So

39
00:18:52.320 --> 00:19:09.840
again, the growth site area is 58,463 square feet. The net urban forestry area, which is that growth site growth site area minus deductible areas like utility easements, that's 58,247 square feet. The existing tree canopy area is,48

40
00:19:09.840 --> 00:19:26.080
square feet. All the existing trees are post oaks. So the preservation requirement is actually 50% for the site which is the 704 square feet. Um the required tree canopy for the site 17,474. The applicant is proposing zero

41
00:19:26.080 --> 00:19:43.039
preservation and they are providing 24,550 square feet of canopy. So the required tree canopy for commercial use is 30% canopy coverage. This site is coming in at 42.1 which is very good. and their parking lot canopy requirement. 40% of

42
00:19:43.039 --> 00:20:00.320
your area of parking needs to have canopy coverage. They exceed that requirement by 3,280 square feet. So given the above, staff recommends the following motion that the request for a waiver from the city of Fort Worth

43
00:20:00.320 --> 00:20:16.400
zoning ordinance section 6.302 302J4 preservation requirements for protected tree species canopy be granted reducing the 50% post oak tree preservation requirement from this development to 0%. And I'm available if you guys have any

44
00:20:16.400 --> 00:20:37.520
additional questions. >> Thank you. Questions for staff? Pretty straightforward. Anyone here in addition to speak in favor of this case? Yes, there's a representative here for the applicant if you guys have any questions. >> You're welcome to speak if you'd like. >> Oh, Commissioner Reed,

45
00:20:37.520 --> 00:20:56.320
>> what staff? >> Question for staff. >> All right. >> Okay. So, you saying staff recommend approval? >> Yes, sir. >> Welcome. Please state your name and the city in which you reside in. >> Morning everybody. I'm Daniel Nigel in

46
00:20:56.320 --> 00:21:14.240
Mosquite, Texas. Any specific comments or just open to answering question? Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Well, thanks for coming up, but I think I think we're good. Anyone to speak in opposition? Okay. We'll close the uh public comment

47
00:21:14.240 --> 00:21:39.760
portion. Seems pretty straightforward to me. seemed pretty straightforward to me and I recommend approval of the request for the waiver from the CFW zoning order in section 6.30 preservation requirement for the protective tree specimen can be

48
00:21:39.760 --> 00:21:56.720
granted reducing the 50% post oak tree preservation requirement for this development plan to zero. >> A second. >> Motion to approve has been made and seconded. Chair Benner, how do you vote? >> I. >> Vice Chair Ramsey, how do you vote?

49
00:21:56.720 --> 00:22:12.559
>> I. >> Commissioner Carr, how do you vote? >> I. >> Commissioner Reid, how do you vote? >> I. >> Commissioner Deose, how do you vote? >> I. >> Commissioner Hughes, how do you vote? >> I. >> And Commissioner Halliday, how do you vote?

50
00:22:12.559 --> 00:22:42.480
>> I. Motion passes 70. All right. So, our second case this morning is UDC case number UDC-2026-164 and the urban forestry permit number is UFC26-0147. The site is currently two properties.

51
00:22:42.480 --> 00:22:56.960
It'll be replatted into one. So, currently this request covers 5301 and 5321. White Settlement Road. It's in Control District 7. The zoning is E. The owner is 5305 White Settlement Road, LLC. The agent is Paul Kelly with

52
00:22:56.960 --> 00:23:14.080
Westwood Professional Services. And the request for this site is that the applicant requests a certific certificate of appropriateness from the urban forestry ordinances, 25% preservation requirement for existing canopy to allow an 11.1 tree

53
00:23:14.080 --> 00:23:30.960
preservation requirement. This site's going to be a little different from the previous one, and I'll just give you a little bit of background information. So, this project originally came in for a pre-development conference. I don't know if you guys are familiar, but I'll explain it. Pre-development conference, you can

54
00:23:30.960 --> 00:23:46.799
basically come in with a proposed site plan or something that you're looking to do, and you can meet with experts on all the different development teams for the city to either ask specific questions or just get general notes and comments. So, this came in for a pre-development

55
00:23:46.799 --> 00:24:03.600
conference that was hosted on January 7th, 2025. That was before the urban forestry ordinance that we're currently in got adopted in April of 2025. So, when applications for urban forestry come in where they have something like a

56
00:24:03.600 --> 00:24:18.799
pre-development conference from the previous ordinance, they can opt between which version of the urban forestry ordinance they'd like to utilize for their project. Um, this project chose to utilize the previous version of the urban forestry ordinance. So, it's going

57
00:24:18.799 --> 00:24:33.200
to be the requirements are a little different from a lot of the cases we've been showing for the last year. Um, the two main changes that affect the site when using the previous version of the urban forestry ordinance is that that version of the ordinance did not have

58
00:24:33.200 --> 00:24:50.080
post oak specific preservation. The site has a lot of post oak trees. Under the current ordinance, they'd be required to preserve 50% of that. Under the previous ordinance which they're permitting under, there was no special post oak preservation requirement. Second main difference is under the

59
00:24:50.080 --> 00:25:07.039
current ordinance, any post oak tree that's 18 in in diameter at breast height or DBH is considered significant. If you want to remove it, mitigations required under the previous version of the urban forestry ordinance. That 18inch cutoff was only for sites east of

60
00:25:07.039 --> 00:25:23.840
I35 West. The site's located west of I35 west. So post oaks don't become significant until they hit 27 in DBH for this site. See the two properties here. The property line between them is about right here. We have this existing

61
00:25:23.840 --> 00:25:40.080
property which appears to be an out ofuse gas station. Um I believe they're just two small existing trees on the site. Believe this was a pecan and then a shoe oak here. And then this other property has four existing structures on

62
00:25:40.080 --> 00:25:55.919
it. So there's a corner store here. There's a small residential structure here, another residential structure here, and then a larger residential structure here. And then there's also this gravel drive that comes through the property.

63
00:25:55.919 --> 00:26:13.600
So both properties combined have a area of 1.31 acres. And there are five significant post oak trees on site. Before we get into those, I'll just mention the zoning. So, there's a lot of different zoning types

64
00:26:13.600 --> 00:26:28.320
directly around these properties. Um, there's A5 located just to the south down here. There is CF, which is just southeast. There is E, which is both north and east. On the other side of these roads,

65
00:26:28.320 --> 00:26:45.840
there's FR, which is west, and then MU1, which is southwest, and then there's also a PD nearby, PD724. The net urban forestry area or the NUFA for this site um is 56,658

66
00:26:45.840 --> 00:27:02.480
square ft. The existing tree canopy area is 25,86 feet. As you can see, almost all of the existing canopies on this property. Um, again, there are five significant post oak trees on site. This is the urban

67
00:27:02.480 --> 00:27:18.400
forestry phase one plan that they provided. Another difference between the previous ordinance and this one. Under the current ordinance, they did they did conduct a full tree survey. Under the current ordinance there, that full tree survey would have been provided in the urban forestry plans. Under the previous

68
00:27:18.400 --> 00:27:33.919
ordinance, they just need to show all the existing canopy, which they've done correctly, identify all of their significant trees, which they've done correctly, show the locations, and provide species, DBH, canopy area. Um, so we have that. We have these five

69
00:27:33.919 --> 00:27:49.760
significant trees. We have tree 4171. We have some more pictures of that one later that'll be shown in the presentation. That is a 30-inch post oak tree. Tree 4169, that's a 27inch post oak tree. Tree 4172,

70
00:27:49.760 --> 00:28:06.320
that is a 30-inch post oak. Tree 1967, which is a 27inch post oak. And then tree 1955, which is a 36inch post oak. Um, tree 1955 is proposed to be preserved. These other four are proposed to be

71
00:28:06.320 --> 00:28:22.399
removed. I'll get into the methods of mitigation on those a little bit later. This is the proposed site plan. So again, tree 1955 is proposed to be preserved. Um this symbol shows the tree protection.

72
00:28:22.399 --> 00:28:38.720
Typically the base requirement for tree protection on significant trees is to install chain link fencing either at around the critical root zone which is calculated based on the DBH of the tree or at the drip line which is basically the edge of the branches. As you can see

73
00:28:38.720 --> 00:28:56.159
from the overlay here, they can't quite maintain the tree protection for the entire drip line of the tree. Um, speaking with the applicant, none of the proposed development will be done within 17 ft of the trunk of the tree.

74
00:28:56.159 --> 00:29:11.600
And there they have some additional methods that they're going to use to better work around the root system here that I'll get into. Um, so number-wise, again, the canopy requirement, the base canopy requirement for this site, it's commercial site, so

75
00:29:11.600 --> 00:29:28.640
30% canopy coverage, that would be just under 17,000 square feet. Um so both tree 4171 and 4172 they can be mitigated with additional planting which is basically when you

76
00:29:28.640 --> 00:29:44.399
remove a significant tree you can choose to plant in excess of your requirement at five times that removed canopy area. So with the proposed planting both of those trees can be mitigated with additional planting. The other two trees will need to be mitigated via

77
00:29:44.399 --> 00:30:00.159
payment into the tree fund. And that payment into the tree fund, which that's a fund controlled by parks to plant trees across the city. There are five different districts in that tree fund. So they make sure that a site that contributes to the tree fund, the trees are going in the general area of that

78
00:30:00.159 --> 00:30:19.360
project. Um that payment would be $16,200. And so with those two trees being mitigated with preservation, we'll get into the numbers here. So the growite area for both properties 57,111 square ft. The net urban forestry area,

79
00:30:19.360 --> 00:30:35.039
this is after easements have been deducted, is 56,658 square feet. Existing tree canopy area is 25,86 square feet or 45.5% of the NUFA. The required tree preservation would be 6,452

80
00:30:35.039 --> 00:30:52.559
which is 25%. Um the required tree canopy is 33,92 square feet and again this includes an additional just over 6,000 of square feet from the mitigation. So commercial sites normally have 30% canopy coverage with the mitigation. This site's

81
00:30:52.559 --> 00:31:09.679
requirement is 58.4. Their provided preservation is that tree 1955 that has a canopy area of 2858 and it is a significant tree. So preserving it they get an additional 50% credit that goes towards their planting.

82
00:31:09.679 --> 00:31:26.399
So between that preservation and their proposed trees, they have a provided tree canopy coverage of 33,937, which is just over their requirement, but it's they're at 59.9% coverage on a commercial site where the requirement is

83
00:31:26.399 --> 00:31:43.679
30. So they're essentially double what a normal commercial use would need to provide. Um, again, there's a requirement for 40% of the area of parking to have canopy coverage. for this site. They've exceeded that parking canopy requirement by 11,652

84
00:31:43.679 --> 00:32:03.120
square feet. And then recommendations. This was a difficult site um to deal with obviously. Oh, sorry. We'll get into the photographs here. So, this is that tree 4171

85
00:32:03.120 --> 00:32:20.000
as I showed you guys. this tree here um extremely close to the existing structure that'll need to be demoed. This is another picture taken from the west facing east. Um this is not a significant tree, so it wasn't called out on that individual

86
00:32:20.000 --> 00:32:34.399
plan, but this is that larger residential structure that's in the middle. Again, as you can see, overhanging the existing building, extremely close proximity to demo work that will need to be done to develop this site. All these pictures were taken during a

87
00:32:34.399 --> 00:32:53.200
site visit on July 9th. And then this is tree 1955. This is the existing tree that's proposed to be preserved right down here. Um that existing structure is within about 3 feet of that tree. Um so

88
00:32:53.200 --> 00:33:09.200
the normal tree protection where you just kind of put a chain link fence around it and don't move it, that can't quite happen during demolition. So there is another set of tree protection that's going to be going in which is bark strapping. Basically just taking a bunch of 2x4s, wrapping them around the trunk

89
00:33:09.200 --> 00:33:31.360
to try and prevent trunk damage. And then the demolition of this structure and I believe the pad are planned to be done without machinery. So we shouldn't have anything driving through here ripping everything up. Then so given the above staff or sorry

90
00:33:31.360 --> 00:33:45.760
given the above staff recommends the following that the request for a waiver from the city of Fort Worth zoning ordinance section 6.302 G4 general provision methods of tree canopy be granted reducing the 25% tree preservation requirement for this

91
00:33:45.760 --> 00:34:01.679
development plan to 11.1. We are requesting conditional approval. The condition is ensuring that the removed post oaks are provided to local woodworking and sawer networks who will ensure that the wood is utilized for furniture and other products to avoid

92
00:34:01.679 --> 00:34:19.599
just being disposed of in a landfill. Um we treated this case similarly to another one that we had. I believe it was about a year and a half ago. Similar thing it was a smaller site just over an acre. The majority of the trees were mature post oak trees. Um we had the

93
00:34:19.599 --> 00:34:38.560
same recommendation under that one which was the conditional approval making sure that the wood gets provided for sec so it has a second life and we're making the same recommendation here. I'm available if you guys have any questions. >> Caleb what happens in the unlikely event

94
00:34:38.560 --> 00:34:56.159
that posttop gets damaged and dies during construction. >> Sure. So if for some reason the the warranty for any preserved trees is it needs to be viable which means it's not in it's not dead or damaged or in

95
00:34:56.159 --> 00:35:12.880
declining health five years from the date of completion of construction. So our whenever the site gets completed and the new trees get planted our inspector goes out and does a final inspection and then he sets a timer for both two years and five years. that

96
00:35:12.880 --> 00:35:30.480
five-year inspection comes. If tree 1955 isn't viable for pres or isn't is no longer viable for some reason um related to the construction activities, then it would need to be replaced at five times its canopy area. So that's going to be

97
00:35:30.480 --> 00:35:46.800
just under 15,000 square feet of canopy. And because it's also a significant tree, it would need to have its normal mitigation. So the site is fully planted with their proposed plan. So what we would likely

98
00:35:46.800 --> 00:36:02.240
have to do in that case is we would have to switch the methods of mitigation. All five significant trees we need to switch all of those to mitigation via payment into the tree fund. Um so two trees would have already been paid for and

99
00:36:02.240 --> 00:36:22.160
mitigated. The other three would need to be mitigated via payment into the tree fund. I have that number written down somewhere. So that would be an additional 28,800 dollars that would get paid into the parks tree fund. And then

100
00:36:22.160 --> 00:36:39.200
by switching the methods of mitigation on 4171 and 4172 that would allow the five times canopy requirement to replace this if it doesn't survive to be covered by this existing plan assuming another large

101
00:36:39.200 --> 00:36:55.760
species tree gets planted here. So if for some reason this tree doesn't make it five years from the end of construction, then there there's a path to get plans that are approvable and meet requirements and

102
00:36:55.760 --> 00:37:11.599
the trade-off would be additional payments into the parks tree fund. >> Thank you. >> What happens if the current owner no longer owns the property? Urban forestry plans and permits run with the land. So if this bosen passes today and the urban

103
00:37:11.599 --> 00:37:26.800
forestry phase one plan gets approved, the new owner needs to maintain that plan. So the preservation shown in that plan would need to be maintained or if the site plan changes or they can't meet that preservation. If they're not hitting 25%, we're coming right back to

104
00:37:26.800 --> 00:37:45.119
UDC. >> When you if you have to come back, which plan would they be on? Would it be on the current plan? So if the site plan changes, the reason this project is vested under the old ordinance, this is the site plan that was presented during that

105
00:37:45.119 --> 00:38:03.599
pre-development conference. So if someone comes in with a new use or new site plan, they're now under the current urban forestry ordinance, which for mature post oaks has much tougher requirements. >> Are there any utilities on the site? Um, it looks to me I can't I guess it's wide

106
00:38:03.599 --> 00:38:20.160
settlement on the north side or whatever. >> Yeah. So, the only two easements that they have called out right now are on the northeast and northwest corners. That was a concern that we noted in the staff report. Um, typically when these

107
00:38:20.160 --> 00:38:36.800
planes come in, we're provided sites can be in all different phases of platting when they come in for urban forestry. Um, best case scenario is we have a draft of the final plat that they've either submitted or will be submitting. We don't have that for this case. I'll let the applicant speak on

108
00:38:36.800 --> 00:38:52.000
any information they already know about what easements would be required for this property. Um, but yeah, the only two area of easements that we have shown right now are in this northwest corner and the northeast corner. But it does seem like they've pushed all the trees to the perimeter of the property and

109
00:38:52.000 --> 00:39:08.560
there are aerial power lines on the what looks like white settlement and then the road to the west right >> west here. Yes. I believe there's overhead power lines on the north and west side of this property.

110
00:39:08.560 --> 00:39:25.839
>> So these are large canopy trees. Will they be conflicting with those power lines? Um, should we be concerned about? >> So, cedar trees tend to get a little higher before they spread out like a live oak, but yes, there could be concerns with those trees if those overhead power lines are going to remain

111
00:39:25.839 --> 00:39:46.400
during construction. >> Typically, Encore will just come in and hack them. So, we're right. It's possible. >> Yeah. >> Is this an ideal planting scenario? I guess that's the question. >> Um, planting locations. Again, the site

112
00:39:46.400 --> 00:40:02.560
is basically as planted as you can get. We even have some trees here. Um, these circles around the trees, they're 50 foot diameter circles. That's the 2,000 square feet of canopy we give them. There's a couple trees that are within 40T of each other. So, they start

113
00:40:02.560 --> 00:40:19.359
getting spacing reductions. Um, so without incurring more spacing reductions, this is basically as many trees as they can provide on site with the site plan. >> And those are parking spaces, right? >> Yes, sir.

114
00:40:19.359 --> 00:40:34.960
>> And they will be overlap, the trees will be overlapping the parking spaces. >> Yes, sir. That's the goal eventually. So these four parking spaces here, um, parking spaces out front, and then additional parking here. Um, as you see, this is with the this is the these

115
00:40:34.960 --> 00:40:50.000
circles show the full credit of the canopy they're getting. So, the majority of the parking on site should have tree canopy coverage. Not so much at the storefront, but all the other parking should have good canopy coverage over time. >> Okay. So, Lord forbid if a strong wind

116
00:40:50.000 --> 00:41:10.720
or something come and you got cars parking there, who would pay for the damage? Not sure. It's an insurance question regarding the uh conditional recommendation. What's the mechanism for

117
00:41:10.720 --> 00:41:27.599
the applicant providing the um the wood to the woodworking network? So, with the other case we had, um, I can't remember if it was a formal contract or just an agreement that they'd had with a local I

118
00:41:27.599 --> 00:41:44.240
believe I believe it was just a local woodworker. I don't think it was a woodworking company. Um, where they basically just submitted their agreement that they're going to be removing these trees. I believe the the people they're providing the wood to because they were getting a lot of mature post woods. I

119
00:41:44.240 --> 00:42:00.560
believe they actually came out and did the removals for them as part of that agreement. We would be looking for something similar. In this case, we wouldn't approve typically after we go to the urban design commission. If you guys vote to approve a motion, we can approve the phase one plan that day. For this site, it's conditional approval on

120
00:42:00.560 --> 00:42:16.280
something that has not been submitted yet. So, if the motion passes as recommended today, their urban forestry phase one plant and these removals are not going to be approved yet. We're going to wait for them to submit that information.

121
00:42:19.280 --> 00:42:36.640
Right. Any other questions for staff? Is there anyone here to speak in favor? >> Yes. Person name is Paul Kelly. Paul, if you want to come up where you reside. >> Paul, please set your name in the city

122
00:42:36.640 --> 00:42:54.079
in which you reside. >> Good morning. My name is Paul Kelly. I'm from Keller, Texas. >> Questions for Are you the applicant? Uh, yes. So, I'm the agent on behalf of the applicant. Um, I'm a certified uh arborist with Westwood Professional

123
00:42:54.079 --> 00:43:10.079
Services. I put the plan together. um took into account, Caleb did a great job on the presentation, took into account all the constraints on the site um that led us to the preservation of that that 1955

124
00:43:10.079 --> 00:43:26.480
um lack of preservation on the other post oaks just due to the site constraints, the existing buildings. Um one thing I'd like to reiterate, so this is this is not a new development. This is not um just natural land. This has already been developed. There's there's

125
00:43:26.480 --> 00:43:43.359
uh various structures, retail, commercial, residential that are on site. Um we talked about utilities. So there are utilities on site. They're just not within easements. So there are utilities underground that still have to come out that are going to affect a lot of these trees during the construction process. And that's why we identified

126
00:43:43.359 --> 00:43:59.599
tree number 1955 as that 36 inch post oak, which I mean that's a very significant post oak inside the city of Fort Worth. I mean you can talk estimates that that tree is anywhere from 180 to 250 years old. Um so that that's a very significant tree but just

127
00:43:59.599 --> 00:44:14.640
due to the site constraints we we don't really have the grading constraints but it's all the the pavement utilities structures there um site constraints as far as uh city requirements, city setbacks having to put that building

128
00:44:14.640 --> 00:44:30.400
towards the back of the site. um that all contributed to the lack of preservation on the site. So I I can answer any questions um regarding the trees um over the parking. The city has a requirement where 40% of the the uh

129
00:44:30.400 --> 00:44:46.480
parking area has to be provided a canopy has to be provided for that parking area and those trees I believe it has to be within 15 ft of the parking space. So there are city requirements for that and what that does is that um basically protects those those spots. It provides

130
00:44:46.480 --> 00:45:02.720
shade for the cars, for the trees or for the uh the parking areas, things like that. So, there are city requirements regarding that parking issue. >> Mr. Kelly, have y'all had any discussions about who will be taking the

131
00:45:02.720 --> 00:45:18.880
uh post oaks and using for future use? >> Yes, sir. So, I've been in contact with the North Texas woodworking uh woodturning group woodturning association. I've talked to the president, the vice president, and a couple other members who are interested in in the wood. And so, um, we're

132
00:45:18.880 --> 00:45:34.640
working with them right now to to get them the wood so they could repurpose it, like Caleb was saying, into furniture, um, any other, you know, woodworking products. >> So, they'll provide some type of agreement or some type of uh, formal letter stating that yes, they're going

133
00:45:34.640 --> 00:45:49.440
to take it. >> Yes. Yes. We're going to work with them on on the details. Yes, sir. >> Thank you. Uh just a quick question for you on the plan layout. Um am I to assume that the top leftand corner or the northwest side of that that is where

134
00:45:49.440 --> 00:46:07.440
the tanks are going to be located for the station? >> Yes. Um near the the existing uh gas station. >> All right. Cool. >> So all all of that existing gas station, all those tanks have to come out the the existing gas station, all the concrete

135
00:46:07.440 --> 00:46:23.760
has to come out. Um, and then like Caleb was saying, I wanted to add to the the preservation and and mitigation methods on the tree 1955. Um, so there is that that shed that's close to that tree. Um, we will be wrapping it like Caleb said with the

136
00:46:23.760 --> 00:46:41.440
2x4s. Um, in addition, uh, no machines will be in there. It will be all hand dug out. Um so so post oaks are very susceptible to root damage uh root compaction and so preventing any type of

137
00:46:41.440 --> 00:46:57.920
uh uh mechanized equipment on there will will ensure the survivability of that tree. Um in addition to that as you can see here we are getting like Caleb said we are getting into a portion of the root zone. So there's there's um

138
00:46:57.920 --> 00:47:14.319
methods within the uh agricultural world to help mitigate for that. So one of the the items we can do is air pruning. It's a pneumatic air pruning of the roots where we can actually go in properly prune those roots where we're not just taking um like a bulldozer or an

139
00:47:14.319 --> 00:47:30.000
excavator and ripping those roots out. You're using an pneumatic tool to air excavate the roots. And then you can clean cut with clean tools. You can you can clean cut the roots, seal them, which all you know goes into the survivability of that tree during the

140
00:47:30.000 --> 00:47:47.599
construction process. >> Will you be documenting those techniques as you move through the project? Is that something that the city will be able to trace that those tools were actually used to help mitigate any damage as it moves forward? >> Yes. Yeah. Working with the urban forestry department. Uh we'll be going

141
00:47:47.599 --> 00:48:04.400
out there documenting um taking photos of of the process and then working with Jose I believe the inspector. Um he'd be going out there I'm sure every so often and just checking up and inspecting the site making sure that we are doing it

142
00:48:04.400 --> 00:48:22.880
properly. >> Are you concerned about the perimeter park plantings and uh conflicts with the uh the power lines? uh over on the west side. Um I understand the concern. So So

143
00:48:22.880 --> 00:48:38.240
technically the easement is offsite off our property, but um as those trees grow, like Caleb was saying, they'll spread out the the canopy. Uh there are pruning techniques that you can do to help train a tree um especially to stay out of power lines if we need to shift

144
00:48:38.240 --> 00:48:57.000
them in the field. So the these uh um plans, we can shift those trees a little bit to to stay out of any type of overhead power line as needed. Um, we have more space there along that that southwest corner. Um, if we need to move those trees around,

145
00:49:13.760 --> 00:49:31.440
>> any other questions for Mr. Kelly? Anyone else here to speak in favor? Thank you. Thank you. We received three letters of opposition for this one. Two letters specifically dealt with the existing post oaks and concerns both on

146
00:49:31.440 --> 00:49:49.000
the preservation methods for 191955 and just general concern over the removal of so many mature post oaks. I don't know if any of those people are here today in the register. Right here's we have one that's here.

147
00:49:49.200 --> 00:50:20.880
>> All right. Four. Okay. Um, have you all registered to speak? All right, we we have some forms we're going to have you guys fill out. Um, I know I know we spoke with a couple of those folks about filling out those forms. If you do come up, we just ask that you you can go to the podium on the

148
00:50:20.880 --> 00:50:40.960
side there. Um, your left, the commission's right. Then I'll just state who we received the three letters from. I'm expecting some of them might be here today. So, we received one letter from Brandon Bledo. Again, he had concerns with the the

149
00:50:40.960 --> 00:50:58.000
existing trees, their removal, and then he also noted concerns with the applicant being able to use the previous version of the urban forestry ordinance. Um, another one was Margaret Johnson. She's the president of the River District Neighborhood Alliance. She had a really real, really large,

150
00:50:58.000 --> 00:51:14.400
well-written letter, similar concerns with the existing post oaks for this property and just generally across the area and across the city. And then we received another email from Melinda Tattlebomb with the River District Neighborhood Alliance. However,

151
00:51:14.400 --> 00:51:29.520
her concerns were mostly with land use and traffic, which is not something that's being considered today. >> And Caleb, while they fill out those forms, I believe those uh letters are on the tablets, so if you want to read them, you can. Um, and like Caleb said,

152
00:51:29.520 --> 00:51:46.559
we're looking at the UFC waiver today. Uh staff's also for those in opposition willing to sit down with any of those and hear their concerns outside of this form, but today we are just looking at the the trees. >> Caleb, the um whenever they calculate

153
00:51:46.559 --> 00:52:03.839
the overall canopy coverage, do they count the canopy coverage that's outside of the property? So within the rightway, you've shown these circles. >> Yeah. So with the urban forestry ordinance, it's all about the trunk. So, as you can see, a lot of this canopy is

154
00:52:03.839 --> 00:52:19.599
basically covering off of the property, but the trunks on their property, they need to maintain these trees, so they get full canopy credit. Even though some of the canopy being provided is over the street, that canopy credit still counts towards their site. Similarly, if the

155
00:52:19.599 --> 00:52:43.760
neighbor had a really big tree right here that gave a whole bunch of canopy, they don't get any credit for that. Not their trunk, not their credit. And I will note, I meant to mention this at the beginning, but because we're using the previous version of the urban forestry ordinance, um I discussed the

156
00:52:43.760 --> 00:53:01.760
difference in significant trees um with how the old ordinance handled it and how the current one handled it. So, I went out there with our inspector, Jose, as Paul mentioned, on July 9th, and we taped a bunch of trees and we located 11 trees that fall in that range of 18 in

157
00:53:01.760 --> 00:53:29.200
to 20 or to just under 27 in. So, under the current urban forestry or under the previous ordinance, the site has five significant trees. Um, under the current ordinance, it would have 16. We we do have the speaker forms. So, Mr.

158
00:53:29.200 --> 00:53:56.240
Chairman, if you want to start calling those folks up, you can. Welcome up. Thanks for being here. Please state your name and the city in which you reside. Johnson. I live at 121 McGee Drive, Fort Worth,

159
00:53:56.240 --> 00:54:13.040
Texas. >> And I've >> Can you pull down that Can you pull down that mic just so they can hear you? >> Perfect. >> Thank you. >> Is it working now? Uh, I did send in a information and I hope that you got resaid that the one big thing on that we

160
00:54:13.040 --> 00:54:30.000
want you to see is the one that shows the 2024 canopy of the river district and the 2025 canopy of the river district. That should be in your information. We are concerned about the trees. We have questions for you.

161
00:54:30.000 --> 00:54:49.520
First question is from state applicant of elected for to the previous urban ordinance from 50% ftos that's been apparently okay. Um so we have 11 trees

162
00:54:49.520 --> 00:55:05.680
on site. >> Um only five are being discussed. So that means the other seven are being cut down too. Um staff reports that the final plot has not been submitted. It is unclear how the easement is fulfilled. Why don't we

163
00:55:05.680 --> 00:55:24.079
wait till we get a flat um required canopy is 33,92 ft proposed is 33 93 37 the margin is 800 square foot tree difference 1955 is

164
00:55:24.079 --> 00:55:38.880
the one left uh it's short 3,400 ft of a canopy. All right. Um, you've answered on what it does if my question was what happens if it fails

165
00:55:38.880 --> 00:55:56.480
and you've answered that question. Uh, staff supports the waiver on the grounds of the post oaks to not farewell when impacted by construction. This plan puts development inside trees 1955 critical area. 15 nursery trees are created to today at

166
00:55:56.480 --> 00:56:14.240
a protected mature canopy. How many trees? How many years under that actual produces 6,000 29,600 ft? How many years will it take to get back to where you're talking about it giving them that access?

167
00:56:14.240 --> 00:56:30.559
Decades, not years. Does a city track canopy loss in the river district which you received I hope the photos of 2014 and 2025 from Google Google Earth.

168
00:56:30.559 --> 00:56:49.920
How many tree porization waiverss has the commission granted in council district 7 in the last five years? many this um okay I did send when what we're asking today

169
00:56:49.920 --> 00:57:06.559
is if you plan on approving this that we wait you wait until the plat and the plan has been given. We don't know what they're planning. We don't know that the city's going to okay it. But uh my eye

170
00:57:06.559 --> 00:57:22.000
concern today is the trees. And like I said, if you go back and look at 2014, I moved in in 98. Where are the trees gone? Because somebody said, "We have to move this tree." You have a picture of a tree that

171
00:57:22.000 --> 00:57:38.160
was cut down for the Sadi Apartments that could have been saved and was supposed to be saved and then they cut it down. It was in the photo you can see it was about 4 foot in diameter and it was put in the dump.

172
00:57:38.160 --> 00:57:58.920
All the trees we have cut down have been put in the dump. Thank you. You have any questions? Thank you. Thank you, M. Johnson. Uh any anyone else here to speak in opposition?

173
00:58:01.920 --> 00:58:27.680
Okay, we will close the public comment portion for discussion by the commission. Caleb, the plan that we're seeing here is the final plan and cannot be deviated from even with the plan doesn't deal with

174
00:58:27.680 --> 00:58:43.520
trees. The plan just deals with property and utility easements and things like that. Right. >> Correct. So there can be slight changes like the changing of proposed species. So if for some reason they wanted to do more live oaks and leeds, that's

175
00:58:43.520 --> 00:59:00.079
something that we could do. um if they wanted to relocate some of the proposed plantings as long as the provided canopy area is maintained or increase. That's something we consider or we could consider. Again, significant changes with the land use or site plan would

176
00:59:00.079 --> 00:59:15.520
prevent the site from being vested under that pre-development conference which brings it under the new urban forestry ordinance which means we'd have to come back here again. But minor changes like species and proposed locations we could

177
00:59:15.520 --> 00:59:32.079
review and approve assuming the canopy area is either the same or more than it is today. >> Another question, are these species that they're going to be planting better than the post oaks in terms of,

178
00:59:32.079 --> 00:59:48.240
you know, all the things from trees in the city? >> Sure. So, in Fort Worth, it's very difficult to plant a tree that's better than a post oak. um especially mature post oaks. Again, like I said with the previous

179
00:59:48.240 --> 01:00:03.599
case, there hasn't been a lot of success in nursery raising post oaks. They're not really available at nurseries to purchase for planting. So, we city of Fort Worth probably has as many post oaks as we will ever have. So, sites

180
01:00:03.599 --> 01:00:21.760
that remove post oaks, those trees are essentially gone forever. It's unlikely to be replaced. Um, so their planting plan is excellent, but they're removing a lot of mature post oak trees. Any site that is having to

181
01:00:21.760 --> 01:00:44.480
remove mature post oaks, it would be a difficult argument to say that the canopy is improving with the development even though they're planting so well. It's just you have a lot of mature post oaks. This is Commissioner Hughes. How common

182
01:00:44.480 --> 01:01:01.599
is it to approve a tree preservation or or removal and then preservation to uh without knowing what the site plan will be projected to be? >> So, are you talking about concerns with how the plat may affect the plan?

183
01:01:01.599 --> 01:01:17.280
>> The plat and the future use of the property. >> Okay. So again, we have the proposed site plane here. Not expecting changes to this. Um the only reason I brought up in my staff report concerns with the plat is certain easements are deductible

184
01:01:17.280 --> 01:01:33.440
area. Um so you know, say if as they're going through the platting process, um they call out that there needs to be a 10-ft utilities ement here. Well, now that tree can't get canopy credit. That impacts their whole plan.

185
01:01:33.440 --> 01:01:51.119
It's likely a revised plan that comes in wouldn't be able to meet. We might have to go back to UDC. That's my main concern with the stage of platting we're at now is how it may impact their proposed tree locations, not so much the actual site plan itself. Um, again, any

186
01:01:51.119 --> 01:02:06.720
impacts that the plat could have, um, the reverse could also be true. Maybe the plat comes through with an easement and some of these existing trees are now in a proposed exempt area. It's unlikely based on their locations, but it

187
01:02:06.720 --> 01:02:23.920
certainly happens with other projects, especially like new neighborhoods where they'll have a bunch of rightaways cutting through existing canopy. Um, so our preference when reviewing, especially when we're taking cases to UDC, is we would like to at least have

188
01:02:23.920 --> 01:02:40.720
either an existing preliminary plat that's been reviewed once, ideally approved, or a draft of the final plat just so we have an idea on what the easements might look like on the site. Um, we don't have that in this case, which

189
01:02:40.720 --> 01:03:13.920
opens the applicant up to a little bit of risk. If easements impact the tree planting, we got to come back to UDC again. >> I can't make a motion. >> I make a motion to approve. This is motion with the recommended conditional approval. Correct.

190
01:03:13.920 --> 01:03:31.920
>> Motion to approve with the with conditions. >> Uh for the conditions, um I'm assuming that those conditions at some point were stated uh verbally. >> Yes, >> I can restate them again if you'd like. >> Yes, please. It's clear for the record. >> Staff's recommendation was that the

191
01:03:31.920 --> 01:03:46.880
request for a waiver from the city of Fort Worth zoning ordinance section 6.302 G4. Again, that's the previous ordinance reference. General preservation methods of tree canopy be granted, reducing the 25% preservation requirement from this development plan

192
01:03:46.880 --> 01:04:03.960
to 11.1%. Conditional upon ensuring that the removed post oaks are provided to local woodworking and sawer networks who will ensure the wood is utilized for furniture and other products to avoid being disposed of in a landfill.

193
01:04:09.440 --> 01:04:23.760
Can I ask a question now? >> How does the >> before before we There is a motion on the floor. It needs a second for discussion purposes. So without a

194
01:04:23.760 --> 01:04:40.640
second, it automatically will fail. So I just wanted to make sure before discussion begins that to even entertain a question from the commissioner it needs a second. So this is commissioner car second.

195
01:04:40.640 --> 01:04:57.119
>> Okay. My question was you mentioned the plaque that they had to complete the the plank. How will something start before you get that or is it because that's not a part of the condition right here. Correct. So,

196
01:04:57.119 --> 01:05:12.960
>> and figure out how that ties into being sure you said something about having the plaque and that might change something. >> Yep. So, >> we would if if the motion as requested is granted, we would only be able to

197
01:05:12.960 --> 01:05:28.720
approve these tree removals once they've provided the necessary documentation that the tree is going to be provided for second use. Um, however, before we could approve what we call their urban forestry phase 2 or their UFP2 plan, which is their site plan and proposed

198
01:05:28.720 --> 01:05:47.559
plantings, we cannot approve UFP2s until the final plat has been approved or recorded. So, this plan, as you're seeing it, will not get approved. They will not receive building permits until that final plat has been submitted and approved.

199
01:05:52.480 --> 01:06:16.480
I struggle to support this one honestly. Um I I don't know that it's in best interest and um yeah I feel like I want to know more about what utilities are on site. Um,

200
01:06:16.480 --> 01:06:32.760
I see what looks like maybe a transformer even down here within the canopy. The some of the plantings are within the canopy of another tree that's on this the property. Um, it it seems like

201
01:06:33.039 --> 01:06:49.839
not ideal. >> Uh, we have four peoples here that uh opposed of this and transparent. I I I haven't seen it. I haven't seen it. If it's in here, I missed it.

202
01:06:49.839 --> 01:07:17.920
Uh the four that opposed they if it's in there. >> Okay. >> They're listed. >> They listed it separately. Okay. Well, yes. I believe they have to be submitted by

203
01:07:17.920 --> 01:07:55.119
5:00 pm the day before. This is Commissioner Hughes. Um, Commissioner Ramsey made a motion, but um, are we going to vote on that motion or where are we at? >> Yeah, >> there was a motion and a second and then

204
01:07:55.119 --> 01:08:17.279
there was discussion. So if the chair believes that there's no further discussion, then there's a call to to the vote. So if there's no further discussion, then we're going to vote. >> Seems like there may be some additional questions. All right, call for a vote then.

205
01:08:17.279 --> 01:08:32.480
All right. So, a motion to approve a certificate of appropriateness to reduce the preservation requirement from 25% to 11.1% conditional upon ensuring that the removed post oaks are provided to local woodworking and sawer networks. We will ensure that the wood is utilized for

206
01:08:32.480 --> 01:08:49.159
furniture and other products to avoid being disposed of in a landfill has been made and seconded. Chairman Benner, how do you vote? >> A. >> Vice Chair Ramsey, how do you vote? Yay.

207
01:08:49.359 --> 01:09:07.199
>> Commissioner Carr, how do you vote? >> Yay. >> Commissioner Reid, how do you vote? >> No. >> Commissioner Deose, how do you vote? >> No. >> And Commissioner Hughes, how do you vote? >> No.

208
01:09:07.199 --> 01:09:29.120
>> Commissioner Holidayiday, how do you vote? No. >> Motion fails. 5 to two. for purposes of the record. Um, since a motion approve failed, um, it doesn't necessarily, unlike the board of adjustment or the zoning, the

209
01:09:29.120 --> 01:09:44.239
recommendation would be to deny in those cases. In this instance, the motion is just not approved. Is there a motion to deny just for the purposes of cleaning the record? Is that presented and then second? And then there could be a call to vote.

210
01:09:44.239 --> 01:10:00.400
>> I'll make a motion for denial. Commissioner Holidayiday. >> I'll second. >> All right. A motion to deny has been made and seconded. Um, Chair Benner, how do you vote? >> I. >> Vice Chair Ramsey.

211
01:10:00.400 --> 01:10:16.320
>> Nay. >> Commissioner Carr. Nay. >> Commissioner Reid. Hi. >> Commissioner Deose. Uh I I believe yes.

212
01:10:16.320 --> 01:11:03.280
>> Commissioner Hughes >> I. >> Commissioner Holidayiday. >> I motion to deny passes 52. All right. One thing we forgot to do um at the outset, uh we did have one case

213
01:11:03.280 --> 01:11:18.239
that was posted on the agenda kind of towards the the tail end. It was the last listed case. Um this week after discussions with um legal as well as the the applicant and staff internal uh this

214
01:11:18.239 --> 01:11:36.560
is UDC 2026128 at 2458 Ellis A. Um we determined to administratively pull this case. Some of this is kind of silly. I honestly fat fingered one of the numbers on the agenda and was supposed to do 87 not 77. Um, so there's that issue and then we've received some revised legal

215
01:11:36.560 --> 01:11:53.040
legal guidance uh this week and we've been kind of mulling through that with some recent plan changes from the applicant. So we're administratively withdrawing in this case uh from the agenda. So just if there is anyone here I just wanted to make that that known. But uh I discussed with the chair we

216
01:11:53.040 --> 01:14:17.560
also do have food now that arrived partway through that that last case. So Mr. Chair, do you want to take a fivem minute recess? We'll take a five minute recess. Thanks. What is the procedure? I mean, >> this might come up.

217
01:14:53.040 --> 01:19:42.280
Oh, no. This is >> brought I mean I I do not. Oh, there you go. There you go. >> Oh, no. Those are for those are >> Okay. Control

218
01:19:44.000 --> 01:21:12.560
F10. That's not two. >> So that's how you go back. >> I'm gonna pray that I remember that. Yes, please. >> Thanks. But it's not this. >> No. Yeah, this one is

219
01:21:12.560 --> 01:22:32.320
>> No, this is for >> next one will be Mr. Johnson. All right, we have commissioners present. We'll call the meeting back to order and move on to case number three for today. >> Hi, good morning. I'm Inca River. I'm the senior plan examiner for preservation design. I am presenting two

220
01:22:32.320 --> 01:22:48.560
cases today. The first case is UDC 2026144 for Camp Buouie Boulevard council district number three. The zoning is Camp Buouie, but it's originally um or sorry, Urban Village North. Um the applicant requests a certificate of appropriateness for attached signage in

221
01:22:48.560 --> 01:23:04.560
the Camp Buouie Boulevard District with a waiver from the attached sign standards table 9.1 to allow four attached signs where only one attached sign is permitted per tenant facade along a street frontage. Um so this was the aerial map of the location. um both the zoning map and the aerial

222
01:23:04.560 --> 01:23:21.040
image. These are the existing site photos um for the location. It's I do not know if they have a co for 3 fifth bank, but it is occupied. These are the other two signs. Um there are two signs facing Camp Boy Boulevard

223
01:23:21.040 --> 01:23:37.360
and there's one sign facing Hillell Drive and then a sign that does not face a right of way. It faces the rear of the property and there's residential properties behind it. These are the proposed signs. These are the two signs that will face Camp Bully Boulevard. This is a sign that will face Hillale

224
01:23:37.360 --> 01:23:52.719
Drive and the additional sign that will face the rear properties. This is the view from my site visit for the rear elevation. Um, one is from the pedestrian access on Hillell Drive or road, excuse me, and the other one is from the vehicular view. The sign is not

225
01:23:52.719 --> 01:24:07.920
visible from the street or from the pedestrian walkway. I'm assuming due to canopy coverage. Um, Next, >> this is the Bank of America that's down the way from this bank. It's in the same parking lot essentially. They do have a sign facing Camp Buoy and they do have a

226
01:24:07.920 --> 01:24:24.800
sign facing the additional right of way on this side. Um during my site visit, I noticed that the there was no need for the second sign facing Camp Buie Boulevard. They also have a monument sign that's proposed, but it's not in this case because it's allowed by right. Um based off of the intent of the standard for Camp Buoy District, I am

227
01:24:24.800 --> 01:24:49.040
recommending that Sorry. Okay. I'm recommending that nine table 9.1 be modified to allow a second attached sign facing Hildell Road in addition to that is allowed by Camp Buouie Boulevard questions for me. >> So >> let me go back.

228
01:24:49.040 --> 01:25:12.800
>> Good. This this one or this? >> These are the two they're proposing facing Camp Bully Boulevard. >> Inca, can I hop in here just to be clear on the recommendation? So, the applicant is proposing four signs. The code states that they are allowed one. Staff is

229
01:25:12.800 --> 01:25:27.440
recommending that we allow two, one facing the boulevard and then one facing the side street. So then that recommendation would not approve the other two signs that they are seeking a waiver for. So staff's uh recommending approving the

230
01:25:27.440 --> 01:25:44.880
generally south facing sign and the west facing sign. >> Correct. There is access and visibility from Hildo. So placing a sign on that side would give them an additional sign for identification from a right of way. Um but there would not be a need for a second sign facing Camp Boy Boulevard or

231
01:25:44.880 --> 01:26:00.400
a second or fourth sign facing a residential property that has no frontage access or visibility. And the monument side, sorry, the monument sign up by the street will remain or is allowed by right. >> It is they is allowed by right and it's facing camp buoy boulevard. So they have the sign facing camp buoy. They have the

232
01:26:00.400 --> 01:26:16.960
monument sign facing camp buoy and I'm recommending allowing that of course but also the additional sign facing hildell road. >> So three signs and uh it's two but it's two facing camp and one facing hill road. One attached sign facing Camp

233
01:26:16.960 --> 01:26:35.360
Buouie, one detached monument sign facing Camp Buouie, and one attached sign facing Hilldale Road. >> Looks like the existing conditions for the prior bank had all all four that the current applicant is requesting. >> Correct. A lot of the businesses have

234
01:26:35.360 --> 01:26:51.600
not a lot, but most businesses that have their own building and not part of a strip center have multiple signs. Um, the Bank of America has like six signs. The intent of Camp Buouie though is not to have that much signage, just to have, you know, basic identification and to not have clutter. Um, so I use the two

235
01:26:51.600 --> 01:27:08.080
signs that they have as the ones I recommend for this project, but not all of the signage given that it's directly against the intent of the Camp Buouie code. >> Retail banking is competitive. You got to get an edge. >> No. >> So the standalone buildings can it got got more signs because they're

236
01:27:08.080 --> 01:27:25.120
standalone buildings and this here is like a storefront. So this is this this bank building is its own building on its own lot. Let me go back. It's its own building on its own lot. In the same parking lot, if you go down, there's a strip center building. Those buildings clearly have the one sign facing the

237
01:27:25.120 --> 01:27:44.880
front of Camp Buouie. On the other side of this building is where the Bank of America is. They do have multiple signs, but again, that's I think this opportunity is to not have that clutter and to have just the signs they need for identification of the project. >> Okay, I got you. Follow Take more questions for staff.

238
01:27:44.880 --> 01:28:01.360
>> Is the monument sign fairly f visible if you're headed west on Camp Buouie? >> So it's you can't really see it where that white car is is adjacent to that in that landscaping island. So it's if the car is there, not really. Um if a car is

239
01:28:01.360 --> 01:28:21.600
not there, then yes, they don't have an intent of moving the monument sign. They just have an intent of replacing the cabin on top of the base. but they probably won't have a lot of options to move it. >> Okay. Any other questions for staff?

240
01:28:21.600 --> 01:28:43.120
Is the applicant here speak? >> Yes. >> All right. >> Welcome. Please say your name, the city. >> Um, my name is Maria Vyram. I'm the applicant. Um I live in Middleloian. Um and I'm representing Fifth Third Bank.

241
01:28:43.120 --> 01:29:04.719
And so um if you'll look at um I had supplied some some additional Google map photos of um of uh both Fifth Third and their signage and that right there. So you can see on

242
01:29:04.719 --> 01:29:19.440
that page right there that's traveling westbound. And so from that point that you're this view is approximately 88 ft from the edge of the building. And I can't see I can barely see the monument

243
01:29:19.440 --> 01:29:42.639
sign because of the the cars there. And you don't see any of the signage on the front of the building. On um page two, I did an aerial view of the signage. I didn't include the one that goes at that was proposed at the back of the building because that that's

244
01:29:42.639 --> 01:29:58.159
kind of a given. You I I could tell just doing a Google map that you can't see the sign even just driving up. So that that's a given. Um, so there on that uh tower feature in front of the building, you can see that um the signs are marked

245
01:29:58.159 --> 01:30:14.080
in red uh the proposed signage. And so there's a side elevation sign on the um uh east elevation that um that staff has recommended to not

246
01:30:14.080 --> 01:30:31.760
approve, but I'm I'm asking that it be approved um because of the lack of visibility of any of the signage coming down um westward on Camp Buouie. Um, then if you'll go to page three, this is

247
01:30:31.760 --> 01:30:48.560
an aerial view of Bank of America and all of their signage. They actually have um side elevations, both east east and west have a a sign on it. And there are two monument signs on the property

248
01:30:48.560 --> 01:31:09.040
that that face Camp Buouie. Then if you turn to page four and five um from east and westbound elev um view on camp Buoie um this is the intersection I believe at Ridgely and Camp Buouie and you can see that there

249
01:31:09.040 --> 01:31:28.080
are four signs and then on page five um heading eastbound you can see that there are four signs And that's viewed from about 165 to 175

250
01:31:28.080 --> 01:31:58.800
ft away from the edge of the building. And they're in the same block. I will say on your first photo, the requested east facing sign would not be visible in this photo either. >> It's not. And neither is the Camp Buoy facing the

251
01:31:58.800 --> 01:32:15.120
main elevation. >> That's this small sign, right? No, the >> that's a that's a directional that's not a part of that business. The monument sign would be behind the white car in that far corner. They are proposing to

252
01:32:15.120 --> 01:32:32.880
redo that cabinet on that sign, but the one by that light pole is a directional for something else, not for this business. >> Canon monument sign that they're going to redo. >> Does it have a height limitation or can it >> There are height limitations. Yes. Um

253
01:32:32.880 --> 01:32:49.120
this one's not exceeding it. They can redo the design to meet the Camp Buouie code, but currently that's not being proposed. They're keeping it almost exactly the same, just a new cabinet in a different to match the third, fourth or third, fifth bank. >> Do we know if this cabinet is at maximum height?

254
01:32:49.120 --> 01:33:05.840
>> It's so currently it's at max height. They would have to redo the sign to make it meet the current standard for Camp Buouie. It wouldn't be able to be any higher. They could relocate it and move it, maybe shift it, but again, currently that's not being proposed. Can they add a second monument sign? >> You cannot. No.

255
01:33:05.840 --> 01:33:20.960
>> Because they're not an individual property. >> It you only get one. It's it's per tenant for Camp Buouie like most of our districts are. You don't get to have multiple unless we have like a USA or they have enough street frontage. >> Bank of America has two. >> Correct. But as and again I can say I've

256
01:33:20.960 --> 01:33:35.760
only been in this position for six months. I've received lots of requests like this where they never permitted or got COAs and did it and then we can't retroply make them take it down. But this again I said as an opportunity to make sure we don't continue the things that are messing up the code that we are trying to enforce.

257
01:33:35.760 --> 01:33:53.040
>> I'm just trying to clarify >> you know that if Bank America was to change they'd lose the money sign >> right if they came in and Okay. So they have two because they were already existing at that time. Okay. >> So what we voting on today is to add

258
01:33:53.040 --> 01:34:10.320
additional sign. You're voting today to we're our our recommendation is to allow the one by right facing Camp Buouie Boulevard, but to also allow only one additional sign facing Hildell Road and not approve the second sign facing Camp Buouie and the

259
01:34:10.320 --> 01:34:25.679
other sign in the rear facing the residential properties. >> And and to clarify, Commissioner Reed, we're not voting on the monument sign. No, today >> and and I I'm not asking for the one on the back. I understand that that makes

260
01:34:25.679 --> 01:34:40.880
sense, but it doesn't really make sense for me on um you know the the fact that they've got limited visibility and I even went further down the road and trees just constantly block that view

261
01:34:40.880 --> 01:35:04.000
from the east elevation or westbound traffic. And unless there weren't if there were no cars in the parking lot, you would see the monument sign. Questions for the applicant? I think this image is a little deceiving

262
01:35:04.000 --> 01:35:21.520
because if you clicked like one five feet further past the tree, then you have a clear shot of that tower and you see the signage. >> Yeah, it's it's a blip. You can see you can see the south facing sign. You mean

263
01:35:21.520 --> 01:35:42.159
>> go back. >> Okay. Uh thank you very much. Anyone else here speak in favor? >> We have one in opposition though, >> right? Anyone in opposition, please come forward. State your name and the city in which you reside. Thank you. >> Good morning. My name is Lydia Wardo

264
01:35:42.159 --> 01:35:58.880
Rickard. I'm the executive director of Campbury District, Inc. and I live in Fart, Texas. Um, good morning to you commissioners. So, this sign application is a unique one in that it's being compared to other properties that are legal non-conforming or grandfathered,

265
01:35:58.880 --> 01:36:14.560
however that wants to be termed. This does not fit the current intent of the code or the future intent of the code as well. And as we've talked about at other cases, we are in the um kind of process

266
01:36:14.560 --> 01:36:31.679
of amending the code to make some exceptions and to be a little bit more generous on our signage. The future intent would allow for a second sign facing a side street should a side street present itself. In this case, it does. This is a single tenant building.

267
01:36:31.679 --> 01:36:48.560
I do think that some of the images that have been used and presented are very misleading in the fact that that tower is a defining architectural detail of the building and does have visibility as you move east and west on the boulevard. As a person who drives the boulevard

268
01:36:48.560 --> 01:37:05.360
probably 10 times a day, I'm very familiar with our existing signage. Yes, Bank of America is oversigned and so are the other 30some banks on the boulevard. So, our banking industry is alive and well on Camp Buouie. Um,

269
01:37:05.360 --> 01:37:22.080
where we sit with this right now is to allow for the facing Camp Buouie side to receive a sign. They can decide where to place that, whether it's on the tower or on the building. And then the Hillell side, they can decide where they want that as well. It must fall within 125

270
01:37:22.080 --> 01:37:37.360
square feet of total space between the two signs. And the monument sign could be reconfigured to be you said it was at maximum height. >> It's at max height. Well, they have >> maximum space but not max height.

271
01:37:37.360 --> 01:37:52.639
>> They have a maybe seven inches taller. >> They can reconfigure to use the space how they see fit. We're not discussing that today because nothing has been proposed. But I will tell you that that monument sign when the shrubs are trimmed, which is their responsibility,

272
01:37:52.639 --> 01:38:08.880
can be seen when at the intersection or approaching the intersection from the west moving east. So three signs when everyone else on the boulevard gets one sign is a consideration to consider as

273
01:38:08.880 --> 01:38:25.679
well. And as we move towards the future amendments to the code, we want to minimize that signage because there is a clutter of signage and visual presence on the boulevard which detracts from the aesthetic and the intent of the code. And also we haven't met with the

274
01:38:25.679 --> 01:38:50.719
applicant just they never reached out to our group. The applicant never reached out to Campbury District to discuss this. Thank you. Any else here to speak in opposition? All right, we'll close the uh public

275
01:38:50.719 --> 01:39:08.000
comment portion for our discussion. >> Staff's I think staff's recommendation is is a good compromise. >> I agree. I agree. Oh, did you make a motion? Second that thought. >> I didn't, but I will. >> Okay.

276
01:39:08.000 --> 01:39:22.239
>> Okay. >> How you stated it? >> Motion made to be approved and seconded. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> We have modified to allow a second attached sign facing Hillale Road in addition to that allowed by right facing Campobi Boulevard. >> Correct.

277
01:39:22.239 --> 01:39:37.920
>> A second. >> All right. So, motion be approved. Has been made and seconded. No, don't say that again. Sorry. This is like my second time. >> They're voting to modify okay >> the request and go with with the staff recommendation. >> Okay.

278
01:39:37.920 --> 01:39:53.280
and Commissioner Tom Caru. >> Hi, >> John Reed. Commissioner, sorry. >> I >> Commissioner Deose. >> Hi, >> Chair Briner. >> I >> Commissioner Hughes.

279
01:39:53.280 --> 01:40:09.880
>> I Commissioner Holidayiday. >> I, >> Vice Chair Ramsey, >> I motion to approve with modification. Sorry, sorry. Seven to zero. Motion's been approved.

280
01:40:15.600 --> 01:40:32.320
This is the fourth case today for UDC 2026134 um 600 West Magnolia Avenue. Council District 9 is zoning is Near South. Um the owner is Danscape Inc. and the agent today is Gary Johnson sign guys. Applicant requests a certificate of appropriateness for a wall sign in the

281
01:40:32.320 --> 01:40:46.560
near southside formbbased code district with a waiver from the window sign standards. That's not right. Actually, it's a waiver from the sign standards 5F3 5 F103 to install the sign on the side of the building elevation for a ground floor business that does not have

282
01:40:46.560 --> 01:41:02.800
does not contain a public entrance. This is the aerial zoning map of the location and the aerial image. Um I do want to note that this is one large lot. I thought it was pieces at point. So this is there's two buildings currently on the lot and the smaller one at the

283
01:41:02.800 --> 01:41:19.280
edge facing West Magnolia is the business we're looking at. Um so this is the existing conditions of the site on West Magnolia facing the right of way. Um the figure four is what they originally proposed um with the sign permit that I received. So again,

284
01:41:19.280 --> 01:41:35.840
we can see that I'm assuming that they took out the tree for the rendering um and then there is a very large canopy tree in front of the building. the request was made because they don't want to have their sign blanked by the tree. Um, this is the proposed location for the sign. It is facing Hemp Hill and

285
01:41:35.840 --> 01:41:51.520
Magnolia at the corner. Um, it is an employee entrance. It is noted as employee entrance only. It's about 109 ft from Hemp Hill rightway to the building where this location is. It is not a public access for the company or for the patrons. The door also specifies

286
01:41:51.520 --> 01:42:07.760
it's for deliveries and guests to go to the front of the building. Um, this is the pedestrian view for the sign at the very corner of Hemp Hill and West Magnolia. The location they're proposing would not be visible to the very corner of the building. This is the from the driveway of Himhill Magnolia.

287
01:42:07.760 --> 01:42:23.600
Again, it's very far from there and I don't think it's the intent to have the access from that location of the building. This is the proposed location uh for the sign. It is in front of the employee entrance. Um, and as you saw previously, it would be blocked by the

288
01:42:23.600 --> 01:42:42.000
canopy for this facade. Um, I am proposing an alternate location off of Granger and Magnolia. There is currently construction all the way down Magnolia and Granger, but um, that's the visibility from the pedestrian and across the street coming down West

289
01:42:42.000 --> 01:42:58.320
Magnolia. So, if they did want to have a side sign that did not have a public entrance, I am recommending this location. And then for the intent, the intent is to have the sign to emphasize the public interest for wayfinding. Um, and having the sign adjacent to Hemp Hill and

290
01:42:58.320 --> 01:43:17.119
Magnolia is against the intent of the the standard for the location of the wall sign and would it pos al possibly also confuse patrons to enter a door that they actually cannot access. So the request for certificate appropriateness for wall sign in the forb code district um for to install a

291
01:43:17.119 --> 01:43:32.960
wall sign on site elevation that does not contain a public entrance for ground for business be denied or that the request for appropriateness for a wall sign in near southside formbbased code district include a waiver from the sign standards to install a wall wall sign on a side building elevation does not contain public entrance for ground for

292
01:43:32.960 --> 01:43:59.679
businesses be approved subject to the condition that the sign be relocated to Granger Street facade. They're only requesting one sign. >> They're only requesting one sign. Yes, there are two sign permits, but one is going to be withdrawn. Just just a note for the commission, the

293
01:43:59.679 --> 01:44:15.280
applicant is allowed by right to put a sign on West Magnolia above the pedestrian entrance. to that first denial. If you choose to go with that recommendation, they would then have to locate the sign on the south of the building on West Magnolia. Conversely, if you went with the second

294
01:44:15.280 --> 01:44:31.639
recommendation, then it would they would be allowed to put it on Gringanger Street on the east side of the building. And the construction on the east is the UT Southwestern Oncology Center um building. So, we we wanted to present both of those options to the commission.

295
01:44:31.679 --> 01:44:48.080
So they're only allowed one sign either on Magnolia or if they want to >> or any public entrance. So if they had another entrance, they could have had a sign there as well. Yes. >> So every public entrance potentially they could have a sign in. >> So you would have to meet salow location sign location and allowable area. But

296
01:44:48.080 --> 01:45:15.920
yes, sir. If we approve subject that it goes on the the Granger Street side, they could still choose to put it on the Magnolia Street. >> Correct. >> Not coming before us again. >> You're allowed by right? Yes, sir. >> Okay. Any other questions for staff? Is the applicant here to speak?

297
01:45:15.920 --> 01:45:55.920
>> Yes, sir. Mr. Johnson's here. >> Yeah. We'll come up. Welcome. Please state your name and the city in which you reside. >> Good morning everyone. Um, basically what it is is, uh, when I started this project back in February,

298
01:45:55.920 --> 01:46:11.760
um, there was no there were no trees in the on Magnolia. And in the process of renovating the property, they planted that tree right in front of the entrance. And so my customer uh, wanted

299
01:46:11.760 --> 01:46:39.679
to mount the sign on the corner of the building so that everyone could see it. You can't see anything there, especially coming down. And there was another I'm sorry. >> Sir, just for the record, could you set your name? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Gary John's. And I'm the

300
01:46:39.679 --> 01:46:57.199
sign company that was hired to to do this project. And uh as you can see from this picture, the they're fairly large trees and they walk go all the way down the uh street. So you can't see the sign coming either direction because the

301
01:46:57.199 --> 01:47:15.119
trees block everything. And so that's basically he just wants to move the sign to the corner of the building so that he can people can see his business. Otherwise, if if y'all are if y'all are unable to approve this, I got to give him his money back.

302
01:47:15.280 --> 01:47:32.159
Has he is there is has he looked at placing on the Granger Street side? >> Sorry. What >> have you or the or your customer uh looked at fa placing the sign on the Granger Street side as been discussed this morning? >> The east facing side. >> Yeah. Facing, you know. No, I mean

303
01:47:32.159 --> 01:47:47.520
that's that's the only logical location to put the the sign would be on the other on the end of the building. >> West the west side. >> The west side. Yeah. facing in fact um he has more visibility

304
01:47:47.520 --> 01:48:06.400
facing that intersection than he does if even if it were on the Magnolia which you know would help in my opinion would help his business. All I can say there are also provisions in the near south uh code that allow for blade signs

305
01:48:06.400 --> 01:48:22.960
and sort of perpendicular signs to the facade that might be an option as well. You looked at those? >> Well, I didn't even think consider a blade sign. They're very difficult and they're and it'd be a lot more expensive for him than the sign that he's

306
01:48:22.960 --> 01:48:39.119
currently wanting. He's a little frustrated and thank God he's been really patient with me, you know, and trying to get this approved. But I started this a long time ago and um go ahead. Have you met with the near

307
01:48:39.119 --> 01:48:59.520
southside and they they typically can sort of help you through some of these >> or what >> the near southside incustin James I believe is >> in a word >> the near southside design committee is

308
01:48:59.520 --> 01:49:14.000
who we reach out to and we encourage the applicant to when they're for >> I mean I looked over the packet that that was uh emailed to me at the various uh types of signage that allowed but um

309
01:49:14.000 --> 01:49:32.719
I didn't made it that far, you know. I mean I mean I like the idea of a blade sign, but you know I've I've got I went and bought the materials. I got half the materials already purchased to do the fabrication. I mean it doesn't matter

310
01:49:32.719 --> 01:49:58.159
either way, you know. I prefer to build this sign for him. That's unfortunate. Any other questions for >> Okay. Thank you. Anyone here to speak in opposition? >> We Oh, sorry. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> We received um from near southside

311
01:49:58.159 --> 01:50:15.199
design committee um Ames Vender was in favor of staff recommendation. Debbie Whewheeler, is that how >> Thank you. So, I'm apologize to her. She also was in favor of staff recommendation. Um Jason Eggenburgger was in favor of staff recommendation, but he also did recommend possibly

312
01:50:15.199 --> 01:50:36.960
putting a blade sign at the corner um if they still wanted something facing Magnolia, but also facing >> Hel speak in opposition or anyone speak opposition. I do think it's important that the applicant exhaust all opportunities if blade sign is an option um

313
01:50:36.960 --> 01:50:53.040
before we look at granting any waivers. I would think >> we we do have near southside ink here as well. >> Hi everybody. Uh Austin James with representing Near Southside Inc. Just as a dis disclaimer, we did not have time to take this to the the formal DRC so I

314
01:50:53.040 --> 01:51:08.960
just distributed it by email which she just read the everybody's input from that. So, pretty much I think I just said everything I was planning to say, but I I also want to mention just as an alternative that shingle signs exist, too. We see a lot of real estate companies use those and definitely I'll

315
01:51:08.960 --> 01:51:32.239
talk to him about the trees. We can work with pruning them. That's part of our organization's purview is maintaining Magnolia Street. So, we'll work with him on that. It was not me. I I I thought that they had been there for a while. I I wasn't aware of that one having been removed

316
01:51:32.239 --> 01:51:46.480
and replaced at any point, but >> they were put in per building permit for the remodel and done to the building for the new tenant. The building had been unoccupied for three years. When they got their permits for remodeling and change of views, the trees were put in part of the requirement. I >> I was looking on Street View. It was

317
01:51:46.480 --> 01:52:04.159
there in January of 25 but and had been since 2012 or so at least but so I don't know if that was a newer one that happened exactly. >> They had to replace it due to construction. >> Thank you so much. >> Yes. >> So Inca the building owner installed that tree >> I believe. So it was had to be replaced during construction.

318
01:52:04.159 --> 01:52:32.239
>> They Yeah, it was there and then apparent you can't take it and not put it back. So they had to put it back. It's a question for illegal what what are if we deny it they cannot come back with the same request is that correct so technically I mean the rules would

319
01:52:32.239 --> 01:52:48.560
allow it um unlike zoning commission and the board of adjustment there's uh denial with prejudice um doesn't have the same effect on the UD DC. So, I mean, technically they could just re, you know, get denied and then resubmitted. It would not be wise for

320
01:52:48.560 --> 01:53:04.560
them to do that because they just got a a denial. So, it it would not make any sense. Um, so if you just deny or deny with prejudice, uh, denial with prejudice probably sends a stronger message to the applicant saying, you know, please don't bring this back. Um

321
01:53:04.560 --> 01:53:28.880
but uh a denial with prejudiced uh for purposes of UDC theoretically they could come back and resubmit the same same application just would not be wise for them. >> Yeah, please come to the mic. How about a solution like this? In

322
01:53:28.880 --> 01:53:46.960
putting the putting the sign on the corner of the building and then making a smaller sign saying entrance. Would that would that satisfy the the need to let people know that the entrance where the entrance is? I mean, I could make them a small sign

323
01:53:46.960 --> 01:54:03.599
to put underneath the wall sign. another wall sign saying entrance, you know, maybe a little arrow or something like that. >> The top of my head, I don't know if that meets code. >> Functionally, I understand what you're asking. >> Well, I mean, the linear the front edge is humongous. So, you know, whatever the

324
01:54:03.599 --> 01:54:20.320
I mean, it it will fit within the codes as far as the frontage and the size. It's just maybe putting a small sign underneath it saying entrance like maybe an arrow or something pointing to the entrance in case you know if it's if there's an issue with the confusion you

325
01:54:20.320 --> 01:54:35.440
know about where the entrance is because that's an employee entrance. >> So the can I am I allowed to speak again? Okay. So the existing entrance for employees already specifies that the entrance for patrons and deliveries are

326
01:54:35.440 --> 01:54:50.960
to the front. They're already Yeah. So there I don't I don't you could potentially put a sign there but without review I wouldn't want to say yes to the committee. Um and then there is also already signage on the front of the building. It's not in this because they don't need a c well they need they don't need a permit for it but there are

327
01:54:50.960 --> 01:55:07.119
already signs on the front of the building in the glass that says on demand reality on both sides. So um the again the the issue is not um like wayfinding is going to be an issue. The issue is that it doesn't meet the intent um and the entrance is not for the

328
01:55:07.119 --> 01:55:30.159
public. It's for employees. So even if we specified they go to the front, which it already does, it still wouldn't meet the intent of the ordinance for the sign. >> Yeah, absolutely. Appreciate it. >> We will close the public comment portion. So open discussion.

329
01:55:30.159 --> 01:55:47.760
I think I'm tempted to um make a motion uh along with staff's recommendation so that we give the the applicant the option to put a sign on the Granger side. My preference would be that they just meet the sign ordinance and they can do that by right. So whether that's

330
01:55:47.760 --> 01:56:06.560
over the entrance or uh you know a blade sign, but um it's kind of where my my head's at. So staff gave us two options. >> Yeah, staff gave us two options. We can either deny which then makes them go

331
01:56:06.560 --> 01:56:23.760
back and redesign the sign which would be have to meet the signage ordinance. Um, near south DRC made multiple recommendations to allow for the sign to be on Granger Street, which

332
01:56:23.760 --> 01:56:40.719
the frontage, so it's it's not ideal. It's not a pedestrian entrance, but it's still visible from the rightway. So, it's kind of what I'm thinking. >> Have a have a question or two. Can they relocate that sign that's in

333
01:56:40.719 --> 01:56:57.840
front of the main entrance, the tree, left or right to allow visibility or >> that is not a question for our officer, Mr. Law? >> I I I think that's going to cause a lot of issues. That whole uh public realm on that block face is built out. So, the tree spacing and the

334
01:56:57.840 --> 01:57:14.080
pedestrian light spacing is set and it's been set for quite a while. So, it'd be very impractical to do that and kind of throw off the spacing and the cadence of those things. and Austin already said he would help with the pruning and maintaining of the tree because that's near southside's one

335
01:57:14.080 --> 01:57:29.760
of their I think responsibilities. >> I was I just looking for another way if you move the tree you know to the left to the right then it opens that up. I know there's a cadence but >> right >> I don't know what that would cost but that's just a it just I'm looking for

336
01:57:29.760 --> 01:57:45.199
some other options that may help us comply with our ordinance you know and with that. So one one thing to not is they do have the tree wells. It's not a parkway. So moving the tree, you then have to not just move the tree but then redo the tree well around it. So it's

337
01:57:45.199 --> 01:58:10.400
>> sign I understand that. But if it's, you know, something important to get it over there, you know, that's just a cost of getting what you what you want. So um that's it. Thanks. >> Thank you. I didn't make a motion, but I will make

338
01:58:10.400 --> 01:58:26.159
a motion. Uh I I'll move for approval uh of the um recommend of the certificate of appropriateness for a a wall sign um subject to the condition that the sign be relocated to

339
01:58:26.159 --> 01:58:44.560
the Granger Street facade. Second. >> Okay. Motion to approve for the recommendation has been approved or has been made and seconded. >> Commissioner Carr. >> I.

340
01:58:44.560 --> 01:59:00.560
>> Commissioner Reid. >> I. >> Commissioner Deose. >> I. >> Chair Briner. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Hughes. >> I. >> Commissioner Holidayiday. >> Hi. Vice Chair Ramsey >> I.

341
01:59:00.560 --> 01:59:15.520
>> Okay. Motion to approve with the recommendation for sorry for the relocation of the sign to Granger Street has been approved 7 to zero. Do I also have to do the denial portion two? Okay.

342
01:59:15.520 --> 01:59:40.239
Motion passed. All right. two more cases. And for all the architects, we finally get to discuss some architecture today. Uh not just trees and signs. >> All right. Um so for UDC 202640, this is located at 2950 West Berry Street. Uh

343
01:59:40.239 --> 01:59:54.880
this is BIX zoning. >> Joe, I need to recuse myself from this one. >> Okay. Make sure that's on the record. >> Yep. So Chairman Benner is recusing himself, which means Vice Chair Ramsey is now the the chair. Do we need to elect the vice chair for this case or?

344
01:59:54.880 --> 02:00:11.599
Nope. Okay. >> All right. Uh UDC 2026140. Uh the applicants requesting a certificate appropriateness for a commercial building in the Berry University formbbased code district with the following waivers. There's three waiverss for this one. Um waiver from the requirement that occupiable space be

345
02:00:11.599 --> 02:00:27.199
enclosed to allow partially enclosed space without facade walls. Uh, number two, waiver from the bill two zone standards to allow 20% of the building facade to be within the primary street bill two zone and 0% along the secondary street bill two zone where 70% of the building facade along a primary street

346
02:00:27.199 --> 02:00:43.360
and 35% along a secondary street must be within the bill two zone. And number three, waiver from the corner lot bill two zone requirements to allow 0% of the building facade within the first 30 feet of the street extending from the the block corner or a building facade must be placed within the bill two zone for

347
02:00:43.360 --> 02:01:01.440
the first 30 feet of the street. um along the block corner. I know that's a whole lot. It really it deals with the form of the building and the way that the second story is configured. So, I'll explain that here in just a second. So, this site um this is the the zoning

348
02:01:01.440 --> 02:01:18.880
uh uh of the site. Uh when you search the in our zoning map, it actually takes you to a parcel that fronts university. This subject site is within the yellow here. It's this kind of uh southwest corner of this large lot. So looking at the aerial that kind of better shows it.

349
02:01:18.880 --> 02:01:36.560
Um the lot was recently replotted and uh Cochril Street was vacated, but it very functions very much like a public street. You could drive down it and I would gander that about 99% of people do not know it's a private street. Um the land is owned by TCU and TCU has been in

350
02:01:36.560 --> 02:01:52.960
partnership with Endeavor Real Estate uh group out of Austin, Texas to redevelop this parcel as well as some other properties along West Berry. Um one thing to note about this site at the very corner of Cochril and Westberry is currently what's called the Allen Sachs Memorial Garden. It's a nice little

351
02:01:52.960 --> 02:02:08.000
memorial wall with some plantings that the applicant seeking to retain and relocate as a part of this project. Um this whole parcel in yellow uh most of it to the north of this site and to the east is the development that's known as

352
02:02:08.000 --> 02:02:22.800
Marado on Berry. I believe this has come before the UDC a couple of times both for the building and for signage. It is a large 538 unit mixeduse development with groundf flooror retail really catered towards student housing of TCU

353
02:02:22.800 --> 02:02:38.560
which is just a block away. Um and there's two buildings. they they rise up to seven stories, between six and seven stories. Um, and what the applicant's proposing is what they're calling a jewelbox restaurant. So, it's a two-story restaurant designed

354
02:02:38.560 --> 02:02:54.960
to be a high-end dining experience, uh, with a lot of kind of public engagement and amenities with that. Um, the the TCU has been working on a transformation plan for the north side of West Berry for a couple of years, um, including updates to Molly Reed Hall, which is

355
02:02:54.960 --> 02:03:12.239
kind of Let me pull up the map which is over here and then the Marado on Berry are two buildings in this area. One right here and then another one right here. And we'll see some uh renderings later on that show some future concepts for

356
02:03:12.239 --> 02:03:32.800
further development east. All right. So here's the the site plan. You can see the Marado Onberry to the north and to the east. And then the applicant's proposal is located right here. It's this this development here. And the applicant's proposing uh it's

357
02:03:32.800 --> 02:03:48.800
again it's two stories, 9,700 square ft of commercial space um geared towards restaurants. Um the ground floor includes indoor seating and outdoor seating and a restaurant. The upper floor has a bar and open air patio.

358
02:03:48.800 --> 02:04:05.440
On the ground floor, you'll see there's 13 foot tall windows uh facing Berry Street and also facing Cochroll. And then on the upper story, you see that the upper story is not a traditional second story. It's just a a partial second story with the large area that is

359
02:04:05.440 --> 02:04:21.679
covered by a canopy, but it's open air. There's no facade wall to it. And that's what triggers the second and third waiver of the request. Since it doesn't have a facade wall, makes it tough to meet the BTZ requirements. Um because the BTZ requires that the facade wall be within a certain area from the property

360
02:04:21.679 --> 02:04:38.800
line back or the two stories. Um the applicant's using uh a white brick detail and they also have landscaping around the perimeter in the in the rear opposite of of Berry Street kind of further down Cochril. They do have an outdoor seating area as well

361
02:04:38.800 --> 02:04:54.159
with some nice tree canopy coverage. Um and the applicant is again retaining the Allen Sachs Memorial. They're just relocating it. They are also uh redoing the plantings of course as as a part of that. So here is the floor plan. So just to kind of walk you through it, the

362
02:04:54.159 --> 02:05:08.880
first floor is on the on your right. Um that's this area takes up a good chunk of the site. There's some outdoor seating to the north. Um there's entries off Westberry and also off Cochril where pedestrians can go into. The second story is where things get a little bit

363
02:05:08.880 --> 02:05:26.159
unique. So the applicant has an enclosed bar area here. So that has facade walls. It's conditioned space. Um and then they have a canopy that extends out here in this area. So there's no facade walls, but there is a roof to it. It's covered.

364
02:05:26.159 --> 02:05:41.040
So you can go out there and have your martini when it rains basically. And you'll be able to look out onto Berry Street below, and people from Berry Street and Coch will be able to look up to you. And there's a small portion further to the east that is not covered. So, if you want to kind of go to the

365
02:05:41.040 --> 02:06:00.960
edge and live on the wild side and lean over, you can do that, too. Uh, here's the landscape plan that shows the robust plantings, the street trees they have as well. Um, and they're using the tree on the north side of the property also to help cover that outdoor

366
02:06:00.960 --> 02:06:18.639
seating area as well. All right, so here's the renderings. Here's the the cool stuff. Um, so you can see here the renderings where they're utilizing the white brick, the canopies on the ground level, and then also the canopy on top. Um, the the applicant stated to staff that they're

367
02:06:18.639 --> 02:06:34.159
really intending to activate that canopy and make it a a sincerely occupiable space for it to be used for people to look out onto the street and for people on the street to look up and see that it is being used. Here's a couple more renderings. You can see on the lower left of this one, they

368
02:06:34.159 --> 02:06:49.440
are relocating the Allen Sachs Memorial directly from the intersection further back, creating a little seating area. Um, per the landscape plan, there are some more plantings than than what are shown in this rendering, but the uh intent is to retain the memorial as is.

369
02:06:49.440 --> 02:07:04.960
Um, different different views and perspectives of the rendering. And here's from the Cochril Street side. You can see that you have clear visibility in through these large windows. the applicant seeking to provide a lot of engagement and transparency. They well exceed the

370
02:07:04.960 --> 02:07:21.920
ground floor transparency requirements. And here's the from looking from the north. Here's that outdoor dining area on the ground floor. They didn't West Berry Street is a very busy street. So, they wanted to provide an area that was still pedestrian accessible for ground flooror dining outdoors um but would not

371
02:07:21.920 --> 02:07:37.199
be directly fronting the six lanes that is West Berry. Here's another closeup. And here's a perspective showing how the building looks in relative perspective to Marado on Berry to the east and the

372
02:07:37.199 --> 02:07:53.920
north. Um, so those buildings are substantially taller in terms of size. Uh, this one again it's limited to two stories. And here's the blockscape as you're looking down Westberry. Now, one thing to note, these two buildings here on the

373
02:07:53.920 --> 02:08:10.079
east portion have not been approved. Um, these are just conceptual kind of what the applicant is working on, but it's all uh the applicant is trying to show what the vision of uh West Berry Street is that TCU is trying to create and it all has common ownership and TCU's been working on this plan for a number of

374
02:08:10.079 --> 02:08:25.920
years. And then this building here in the lower left, that's the jewel box that the applicant is seeking these waiver requests for. Here's another perspective of the blockscape. And then here's a view looking down West Berry Street. So you can see how the two

375
02:08:25.920 --> 02:08:43.199
stories fits within the uh the current and future development. Here's from across the street. There's across the street south of of the property along West Berry is a a gas station. Here's a picture of that gas station.

376
02:08:43.199 --> 02:09:00.320
So um you know to to be honest, I was pretty impressed by the design of the building up front. It looks very very nice. There's some great renderings. So, we looked at the waiver requests in context of the intent of the code. So, a couple things that stood out to staff in the intent of the code. Um, number one,

377
02:09:00.320 --> 02:09:15.920
the code's really trying to get site design that addresses the public aspects of private development and how the building form, placement, and use contribute to the quality of the public realm. So, that includes public realm improvements, but then also how the building's designed. Additionally, as you can see number three here on the

378
02:09:15.920 --> 02:09:31.599
bottom, um promoting innovative and landscape building design that advances function and beauty in Fort Worth. Um so in some the code is really encouraging design excellence and that's why this waiver process is is in place where if you have a square peg but it doesn't fit

379
02:09:31.599 --> 02:09:47.520
in the round hole but it's achieving this intent that's something that's worthy for the commission to consider. So to dive into the the details of it and some of this is like very very specific. So the code requires a minimum height in the zoning district of two stories of occupiable space. Well Joe,

380
02:09:47.520 --> 02:10:03.760
what's what's occupiable space? Um so when it comes to occupiable space, Berry University formbbased code does define it as enclosed space intended for human activity excluding spaces intended primarily for other purposes such as storage and equipment. Um so the second

381
02:10:03.760 --> 02:10:18.800
story is clearly not intended for storage and equipment. It's clearly intended to be an activated patio, but it's not enclosed. So that's why we have the waiver request for the enclosed spaces to clarify that so that way UDC gets weigh and that this is indeed

382
02:10:18.800 --> 02:10:34.000
activated. It's achieving the intent uh that the space be occupiable. Um then up above you'll see that the code does specifically label that all development along Barry Street will treat Berry Street as the primary street. Um the second and third waivers deal with the

383
02:10:34.000 --> 02:10:51.280
bill two zone that classifies primary versus secondary streets as well as four corner lots. So um when it comes to uh bill 2 zone uh there's requirements for the primary street that 70% of the facade be within the primary street and then 35% be from the side street. So the

384
02:10:51.280 --> 02:11:06.719
intent of bill two zones generally is to make sure the buildings push up to the street um to just to kind of show you uh earlier today you looked at the gas station that was pushed back from the street. Um bill two zones are tried trying to prevent that. They're trying to pull the buildings up to the street.

385
02:11:06.719 --> 02:11:22.480
Um, in extreme cases, you'll see in order to meet built to zone requirements or uh, uh, max setbacks, uh, architects will design like an L-shaped where a small portion of the facade is forward and within a max setback, but then most of the building is back. Built two zones

386
02:11:22.480 --> 02:11:38.159
prevent against that by requiring a certain percentage of the lobby built up to uh, within a certain range. Um, here's the definitions and the imagery that the code shows for build two zones. on the north is just the regular primary second street. How

387
02:11:38.159 --> 02:11:53.280
that's measured, they want to make sure that facade walls in the shaded blue area. And then additionally, the code has a requirement for lots that are on a corner to make sure that the building is pulled to the corner, that hard uh urban edges are established at corners. It just creates a a better streetscape and

388
02:11:53.280 --> 02:12:10.400
urban form. Um, one thing to note, forgot to mention too, uh there are some definitions in the base zoning about building facades as well as floor area. building facades are defined as the edge of condition space. So because that second story does not have an edge of

389
02:12:10.400 --> 02:12:26.480
condition space within the build two zone. Um that's why it does not meet the bill two zone requirements um even though it is activated. So then that kind of triggers the need for that. Additionally when the um the zoning ordinance talks about floor area it does

390
02:12:26.480 --> 02:12:43.040
mention that uh courtyards and balconies open to the sky are not counted towards floor areas. So because this is a covered canopy that that um is then not open to the sky. So it would be classified as floor area according to the zoning ordinance. So there's a lot

391
02:12:43.040 --> 02:13:04.719
of kind of contradictions and and pinch points the applicant is trying to weigh through with their design. Here's some more renderings. I think some of these were already shown. Um again here is what the applicant is is providing uh along the the Berry

392
02:13:04.719 --> 02:13:21.199
Street side. This the requirement is that 70% of the facade be within the bill two zone. Only 27% is within the uh bill 2 zone formally because of the the second floor doesn't have that facade wall of condition space. Um and then along Cochrell that's

393
02:13:21.199 --> 02:13:39.360
35% is what's required. 0% is and that's because uh just kind of show you that along the roll side the condition space is pushed all furthest back from roll for that enclosed bar area

394
02:13:39.360 --> 02:13:55.040
and the BTZ at the corner they're not able to meet the 30 foot BTZ because again lock of the facade wall and then the minimum twotory height it really gets down to the fact that it's not fully enclosed uh but it's functionally occupied.

395
02:13:55.040 --> 02:14:11.280
Here's some of some more renderings that show that. And then here's the perspective looking down West Berry of how it fits within the larger context of the development. So given all this, um staff's recommending the following motion that the request for a certificate of

396
02:14:11.280 --> 02:14:27.679
appropriateness for a commercial barrier in the Berry University form based code with the following waivers. Uh waiver from the requirement occupiable space being enclosed to allow partially occupiable space without facade walls. Waiver from the bill 2 zone standards to allow 28% of the building facade to be within the primary street BTZ and 0%

397
02:14:27.679 --> 02:14:43.520
along the secondary street BTZ and waiver from the corner lot bill two zone requirements to allow 0% of the building facade within the first 30 ft extending from the block corner that all these waivers be approved. >> I know that's a mouthful and very technical.

398
02:14:43.520 --> 02:14:59.040
>> Any questions for staff? >> Uh just a couple of quick questions or maybe just one. So, we already have some pre-existing conditions like this in that area with Duchess and a couple of those others where they have essentially rooftop bar kind of situations. Were all

399
02:14:59.040 --> 02:15:16.400
those in play before any of the other new zoning requirements have been put together for the formbbased code that's going through there? >> We we didn't look at those specifically. Um along University that is a separate zoning district. Okay. Um, this is BUIX

400
02:15:16.400 --> 02:15:34.719
that has that uh twotory requirement. The different subd districts have different minimum height requirements. >> Any other questions? >> No. >> I'll open the public uh portion of >> We do have the applicant here. >> If the applicant would like to come forward and

401
02:15:34.719 --> 02:15:57.119
>> the architect, use your name and and see what you reside in. Good morning everyone. My name is Shane Hess. Don't hold it against me. I live in Austin, Texas. Joseph already got that out of the bag. Been working up here in forward for about a decade now.

402
02:15:57.119 --> 02:16:12.239
Grateful for the opportunity to talk to everybody. >> Um, are we able to access >> Oh, yes. Thank you, >> sir. Would you move the microphone a little bit closer to you? >> Yes, sir. Is that better? >> Yes, it is better. Thank you.

403
02:16:12.239 --> 02:16:27.599
>> Great. Thank you. So, I'm just here to talk a little bit uh background and context into the development and then hammers here, our architect who can uh go into some of the architecture and design aspects of this. So, and a lot of this is repeat information from Joseph's

404
02:16:27.599 --> 02:16:43.519
presentation. So, bear with me. But for some background, uh so this building that we're talking about, the two-story building is part of a 2.9 acre project. Uh the two other buildings are much larger in scale. Those are six and seven stories. So, the building that we're

405
02:16:43.519 --> 02:16:59.120
talking about today is about plus or minus 10,000 ft usable. The overall project's over 300,000 ft. Um, the use for the project is student housing and retail. So, it's a mixeduse development. Um, there's 780 beds that are being

406
02:16:59.120 --> 02:17:14.479
targeted towards predominantly upperassman students. Um, but a big part of this development, one of the big things we're trying to achieve is a really active ground floor plan to try to create a really nice public realm. So, there's 25,000 ft of retail between

407
02:17:14.479 --> 02:17:31.200
the three buildings. Uh, we're excited. We'll be announcing some of the leies that have signed up with us here in the next month. But to date, um, some of the uses that you'll see are coffee shop, fitness, wine bar, quick service restaurant. So the goal here is to

408
02:17:31.200 --> 02:17:47.679
provide a lot of uh ground floor amenities that will serve not only students and faculty but the larger community. So trying to create kind of a hub of a retail district here on Berry Street, which to date is pretty fragmented. Um part of the development uh is a new structured parking garage.

409
02:17:47.679 --> 02:18:03.280
So the the use prior to this was all service parking. Um it'll be 550 space parking garage with 190 spaces open to the public. Um, Joseph mentioned on it too. So, we Endeavor Real Estate are working in a

410
02:18:03.280 --> 02:18:19.120
partnership with TCU. Um, and it's been a great partnership and we've been working with the city really since day one. Um, and I'd say the both Endeavor and TCU u take very seriously the merit and intent of the Berry Street

411
02:18:19.120 --> 02:18:36.000
University code. So, we're trying to be a good stakeholder of that and be respectful to neighbors and everything that goes along with that. So, um the project is under construction and will be opening uh hopefully have first retailers opening for business summer 27

412
02:18:36.000 --> 02:18:52.719
and then students moving in for the fall uh 27 semester. Um so this is just to show you kind of what the site looks like today. Y'all maybe have driven by. It is a big construction project currently. Um so right now we're just topped out the west

413
02:18:52.719 --> 02:19:07.920
building which is six stories. The larger structure you see we call the east building or the main building. The structure there will top out. Sixth level portion in August, the sevenstory portion in September. So it's starting to take shape which is exciting. Um

414
02:19:07.920 --> 02:19:23.359
we've been in here a few times to talk about the project. I think going back to July 24, which is wild that that was two years ago. Um and so it's been a good collaborative process not only with UDC but city of Fort Worth in general. Um, so the prior approval for this project

415
02:19:23.359 --> 02:19:39.920
would have been August of 24. That was largely for the rightaway abandonment. There was an existing alley that split the site and then like Joseph said, Cochril is a public road. Um, we've abandoned that to where it's now a private road, but there's still an access agreement. And the idea is we

416
02:19:39.920 --> 02:19:56.640
want that to, you know, that's utilized for garage access and other things. So, it'll still function effectively like a um a road. And then the other part of the prior UDC approval was I think we were actually the first applicant to uh move forward on the storm water density

417
02:19:56.640 --> 02:20:12.720
bonus. Like Joseph said, this project is or this zoning is uh up to six stories. So about twothirds of the development is actually up at seven stories. And so we achieved that by basically enhanced water quality standards for the 2.9

418
02:20:12.720 --> 02:20:29.920
acres. Um just some other milestone dates. So, we broke ground in May of 25. Um, I like to say we're in like the fifth inning of construction, about halfway, a little over halfway. Um, we were back in here this past spring for a uh variance for our signage, building

419
02:20:29.920 --> 02:20:45.439
signage. And then the other kind of key dates coming up or the top out dates that again west building uh this month the main building August and September uh you'll start to see a lot of the retail fit outs starting Q1 that should

420
02:20:45.439 --> 02:21:04.240
be uh February 27 and then again uh first retailers opening for business hopefully late summer then moving kids in uh for fall 27. Next slide please. And then this is just a site plan showing where the project sits, you know, kind of relative to

421
02:21:04.240 --> 02:21:21.040
TCU's campus. So, it's kind of on the southeast quadrant uh northeast corner of Berry Street and University. And again, we're um uh it's been a pleasure working with TCU. So they have a very long-term strategic plan that really

422
02:21:21.040 --> 02:21:38.080
uh talks about what their goals are with the overall campus master plan. But a couple of the pillars within the strategic plan are community engagement. They take very seriously that you know it's a big university but they want to be a good steward of the community and engage with neighbors and residents and

423
02:21:38.080 --> 02:21:53.600
the other portion of it is student centered growth. So, Marado on Barry, you know, ultimately it's a student housing project with ground floor retail. So, we're, you know, we're hoping that we help advance those two um pillars within the strategic plan. And

424
02:21:53.600 --> 02:22:08.399
then, you know, when it's all said and done, this is hopefully the first of a few phases to where, you know, upon completion and call it five years, there's the 25,000 ft of retail within Marado and Berry that hopefully when it's all said and done, there'll be

425
02:22:08.399 --> 02:22:23.359
another two or 3x uh amount of retail to where it's creating more of a district like some of the other vibrant areas of the city, be it the stockyards, be it near Southside, cultural art. So the idea here is to give neighbors, students, faculty, you

426
02:22:23.359 --> 02:22:39.680
know, alternate destination versus, you know, all the other great ones that are here in the city. So um, and then I'll go through this quickly. This is just a more zoomed in site plan. So the building that we're talking about is the freestanding building kind of

427
02:22:39.680 --> 02:22:55.840
bottom left corner, uh, west of Cochril. The what we call the west building is the one plan north of there. Um and then what we call the east building is the one caddy corner to Cochril. So from a functional standpoint, it's all the same development. Um from a customer

428
02:22:55.840 --> 02:23:11.680
perspective, the structured parking garage kind of sits within the east building. So if you're coming to dine at this future building, you'll park within that garage. And so one thing this site plan helps to show is um >> 30 seconds left.

429
02:23:11.680 --> 02:23:27.280
>> Okay. >> Time. >> Yep. Uh well, I think that's these are a list of some of the other kind of public realm or community benefits that we've uh tried to achieve here with the project. But basically the gist of it is um it's a very dense development. The idea with this freestanding building is

430
02:23:27.280 --> 02:23:44.000
to help break up that density and what we're trying to achieve is uh you know if you're someone that you want to dine coming off the street and you kind of get off Barry which is very high traffic. So want it to be very visible from Barry but want the front door and activation to be kind of inwards towards

431
02:23:44.000 --> 02:24:04.720
the site. >> Thank you. >> You have any questions for the applicant? >> Are we going to let the architect speak as well or >> it's have any questions for him right now? If not, we'll bring up uh anybody else who's in favor of the

432
02:24:04.720 --> 02:24:21.359
>> I just have a couple of technical questions but not for Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> If you whoever who else is in favor of this project, you want to speak >> your name and where you reside, please. >> Good morning. Hitammer. I represent Beck

433
02:24:21.359 --> 02:24:38.399
Architecture uh 464 Bailey Avenue here in Fort Worth and we are the architect for the project working with Endeavor. Um just to speak to the architecture here a little bit. um you know the the design of the building has evolved and first I think uh Joseph done has done a very fantastic job kind of outlining

434
02:24:38.399 --> 02:24:53.600
very complicated uh details of the project uh we're grateful for his assistance over this uh these last few months getting to this point where we're putting this project in front of you um the development of the project has really been u from a design perspective a balance of a number of different

435
02:24:53.600 --> 02:25:10.960
criteria as you can imagine uh the design uh criteria or requirements for a retail project very different from that of higher uh education institution. Um because this project is really the next component in the development or the redevelopment of very significant uh

436
02:25:10.960 --> 02:25:27.520
project along Barry Avenue. You know, Barry's this this is really going to change um the the atmosphere of that whole project. Um, as Shane mentioned, uh, the desire is to not only is to activate that corridor, uh, from a pedestrian activity, really kind of knit

437
02:25:27.520 --> 02:25:42.560
together the campus to the north with, uh, the new development along Barry Avenue. And a number of aspects of the Marado project to the west have been done very strategically, uh, to try to accomplish this. Uh, the project as it's been contemplated uh, tries to, you

438
02:25:42.560 --> 02:26:00.160
know, kind of extend that strategy. Um it's been very um uh strategic in the in the massing of the project. Um the height of the lower level uh is we feel like um conducive to trying to define as the code uh intends. Um the the urban

439
02:26:00.160 --> 02:26:15.200
aspect in the streetscape along not only Barry Avenue but along Cochril. Uh we see Carl Avenue as being a very active environment during uh campus activities, games, trying to really bring out a lot of the students and the activity that would occur there during those uh key

440
02:26:15.200 --> 02:26:31.359
times of the year. Um and because of that, from a retail perspective, uh the desire is to try to open up the building as much as possible at grade. So we've increased uh the amount of transparency uh from what code uh dictates so that there's direct connectivity between the activity on the interior of the

441
02:26:31.359 --> 02:26:48.479
restaurant and what's happening on the street beyond. There's ground level activity to the north with the patio uh which would engage with the pedestrian connectivity back to uh university on the north side of uh the TCU bookstore. Um, if you were to view the plan of a

442
02:26:48.479 --> 02:27:04.960
Marado to the west, uh, there's a series of POS that, um, intertwine in around the retail. So, it's not your typical strip center, if you will, from a retail perspective. But, yeah, there's a that's a good image of it. Thank you, Joseph. So, the the building is is not a

443
02:27:04.960 --> 02:27:19.760
standalone. It's a part of a larger uh development and a much larger uh extension of the TCU community. Um, we do see it as a two-story building. Uh from a building code perspective, it is equipped with all of the life safety measures, egress requirements, fire

444
02:27:19.760 --> 02:27:36.479
sprinklers that um are dictated by a building code. It's the simple aspect within the formbbased code that defines what is enclosure. And so from our perspective, uh the canopy coverage is intended to provide um access for people uh during these events or just any time

445
02:27:36.479 --> 02:27:51.840
during the year. And again maintaining, you know, visual line of connectivity to uh to the adjacent urban uh district. From a detailing standpoint, we we tried to hearken back a little bit to the architecture uh styles of the campus. So

446
02:27:51.840 --> 02:28:06.880
from a masonry standpoint, from a masonry detailing and articulation, itarkens back a little bit to other aspects of the TCU campus um while trying to balance all of those other requirements from a from a retail uh need. So we feel like we have uh

447
02:28:06.880 --> 02:28:23.120
presented a design that is uh inspired by the code and meets the intent of the code. We appreciate your consideration and of our requests. >> Thank you. >> Any questions for uh the architect?

448
02:28:23.120 --> 02:28:38.640
>> Yeah, I um I appreciate the design. I think it's is a very nice building. Um, can you how tall is the building in relation to the bookstore adjacent adjacent bookstore? >> Uh, good question. So, the the top of

449
02:28:38.640 --> 02:28:54.479
our building to the parapit is in the 30 foot range. Um, if you were to measure in that image, zoom in for me, Joseph. Sorry. Uh, yeah. So, if you were to measure to the

450
02:28:54.479 --> 02:29:10.080
top of the parapit of our two-story building, we're in a 30 31 foot height range. It does not exceed uh the height of the bookstore to the west. Uh and I would call that to the to the top of say the masonry wall just short of the roof um extension.

451
02:29:10.080 --> 02:29:28.160
>> Um and the setback uh from it it looks like the building is set back from the face of that bookstore. Uh what is that setback? It it seems like the rideway actually kind of skinnies up right there too, right? >> Well, there there are a number of aspects happening on the the site itself

452
02:29:28.160 --> 02:29:43.120
and the building. We have pulled as close to Barry and as close to Cochril as we can. There is a easement corner clip that comes across the souththeast corner of the property. Um, and it's in place. It's existing um low voltage um

453
02:29:43.120 --> 02:29:58.960
and connectivity or fiber connections through that area. So, we've pulled the building as far that direction as we possibly can to get it as close to the rideway as we as possible. And then, I don't know that this really impacts the decision, but how do you

454
02:29:58.960 --> 02:30:14.000
access the second floor? Would it be a connected tenant space from the ground floor or is it um like what's the front door to get to the rooftop? >> Uh, so there's there's a um a couple different paths that one can take. So,

455
02:30:14.000 --> 02:30:28.640
we're we're trying to contemplate that um a restaurant tenant might take both levels. It's possible that there could be two tenants. Could be separate operating um hours, operational hours for for each space. So, there is an entrance off of Cochroll just to the

456
02:30:28.640 --> 02:30:44.800
right of the cursor. Correct. Um but there's also access from the north to the ground level patio directly to the elevator. Uh correct. And then also to the elevator there. So we we're providing multiple means of access to that elevator and then access to the

457
02:30:44.800 --> 02:30:59.680
upper level so that that that upper level terrace could function at different times if necessary. >> But the two spaces don't necessarily communicate uh internally that you have to go through a stair an enclosed stair or through an elevator shaft. >> That's correct. There's no twotory

458
02:30:59.680 --> 02:31:18.080
volume or other open area. No, not at this time. That might be something that the tenant contemplates if they take the whole building. >> I think that's all I had. I just had a quick question. So the the building itself kind of sits as its own separate piece obviously and it butts up

459
02:31:18.080 --> 02:31:34.880
against the back of the uh bookstore element back there. There doesn't seem to be a lot of attention in in this plan right now and identifying what kind of transition is going to happen there and and what that space becomes. We've got basically two flat surfaces that kind of create a canyon back there that are

460
02:31:34.880 --> 02:31:51.200
multiple stories tall. Do you guys envision any kind of treatment of that area? Lighting, planting, uh any kind of amenities that would help this thing kind of, you know, set itself apart from that backdrop of the existing bookstore. >> Joseph, could you go to the site plan

461
02:31:51.200 --> 02:32:06.080
maybe for us? >> Yeah. >> And so the area in between this this building and the bookstore is actually the loading dock for the bookstore. It's the existing dock which will be shared with this building. So that is purely a

462
02:32:06.080 --> 02:32:25.040
service area. I I believe we have a site plan. Maybe in your package, the submission package. >> Yeah, you you can see the landscaped area with the the service alley. It kind of goes below grade a little bit and they have the screening wall around it. >> So the screen wall be will be maintained

463
02:32:25.040 --> 02:32:39.040
and we're bringing our building up within about six feet of that screen wall just to provide access back there. Um, so it's not intended to um be a very public area and so therefore we've we essentially put all the service area

464
02:32:39.040 --> 02:32:57.920
back there to to group it together. Anybody else have any questions for Thank you. Is there anybody in opposition to speak or any more in favor? Anybody in opposition? Seeing none, I'll close the public portion and bring it back to the

465
02:32:57.920 --> 02:33:19.760
commission. I will accept a motion if you >> Yeah, I think it's a it's a really nice project and um it's it's kind of fun when um you use the code against itself to make something slightly different but

466
02:33:19.760 --> 02:33:37.520
unexpectedly good. So um cheers to the design team for that. I'll move for approval if >> second. >> We have a motion to approve in a second. >> Happened faster than I thought I was

467
02:33:37.520 --> 02:33:53.680
ready for. Um, so we have a motion from Commissioner Hall to approve all three waiverss as presented and a second from Commissioner Hughes. All right. Uh, Vice Chair Ramsey, how do you vote? >> I. >> Commissioner Carr, how do you vote?

468
02:33:53.680 --> 02:34:09.680
>> I. Commissioner Reed, how do you vote? >> I. >> Commissioner Bose, how do you vote? >> I. >> Commissioner Hughes, how do you vote? >> I. >> Commissioner Holidayiday, how do you vote? >> I. Motion passes 6.

469
02:34:09.680 --> 02:34:40.800
>> Thank you. Looks like a really great project. And I'll turn back over to Chairman Benner. All right. Um, this is the sixth UDC case of today. Just a reminder, we administratively pulled number seven, so this should be the last one. Uh, UDC

470
02:34:40.800 --> 02:34:57.439
2026170. Uh, we addressed it 7979 Trinity Boulevard. Uh this is a recommendation to city council to approve an ordinance amending the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the city of Fort Worth being ordinance number 21653 as amended codified in appendix A of the code of

471
02:34:57.439 --> 02:35:12.720
the city of Fort Worth to amended sections of the Trinity Lake development code as provided by section 4.1307D other development standards of section 4.1307 Trinity Lakes TL District of Article 13

472
02:35:12.720 --> 02:35:29.840
formbbased code districts of chapter 4 District regulation regulations updating regulating plans boundaries of character zones and appendices revising appendix B maps exhibit B.25 Trendy Lakes District and exhibit B.26 Trinity Lakes District

473
02:35:29.840 --> 02:35:46.880
character zones to update the district's boundaries and character zones. So please contain yourself after hearing that exciting request. Um the the the bottom line with this one before I even go into the presentation is a couple months ago you guys heard a

474
02:35:46.880 --> 02:36:04.160
reasonzoning request from an applicant to reszone land that was agg to Trinity Lakes. That reasoning went through city council. So now we have to update our regulating plan maps and the zoning ordinance maps. That's the bottom line with this. Um and here's a picture of the 5.8 8 acre site that was reszoned uh

475
02:36:04.160 --> 02:36:20.160
from A to Trinity Lakes neighborhood via ZC2608. Um it was referred to as UDC 202629 a few months ago as well. Um that went through city council in June. So now we have to update our maps. Um and then just for context, there is this parcel

476
02:36:20.160 --> 02:36:34.960
to the west as you can see here which is also Trimley Lakes neighborhood that went through a similar reszoning and amendment process in 2025. That western parcel is 39 acres. The developer of that western parcel was able to obtain

477
02:36:34.960 --> 02:36:51.280
this 5acre parcel to the east and now they want to do a cohesive development with it all. So here's an aerial kind of showing the existing development that's around it. To the north there's R1 which is pretty detached uh lowdensity single family

478
02:36:51.280 --> 02:37:07.840
residential zoning. And then directly to the east there's A5 detached single family residential zoning. The TLN district does allow for detached uh single family residential zoning with some more flexible development standards that allow for some more um some more urban qualities than just traditional A5

479
02:37:07.840 --> 02:37:24.960
or even R1 zoning. Here's the entire Trinity Lakes master plan. Um there's kind of three areas of Trinity Lakes. There's the area to the west which is by the train station and it has the big lake in it. Um there's the area to the east

480
02:37:24.960 --> 02:37:40.720
uh which is kind of this triangle um that's mostly uh low density detached single family zoning and then they've been working on this middle portion here which is to the south of the existing uh tr lakes of river trails and trin lakes neighborhoods.

481
02:37:40.720 --> 02:37:56.319
So, here's a 5acre site, the plan for it. Here's the aerial as is. Um, the red is the subject area. Um, and this kind of shows what it is we're doing. On the left is the current and on the right is what is proposed. We're just just

482
02:37:56.319 --> 02:38:14.800
literally extending that tan line over a little bit. And here's the uh zoning ordinance maps that we're changing. You can see uh here we have this area that's now included and then this area is shaded in. There's the error pointing it out. Um,

483
02:38:14.800 --> 02:38:30.560
so given this, uh, staff is recommending that the request for a recommendation to zoning commission, city council on the proposed map, proposed text amendment, uh, to the training lakes form-based code and design guidelines as well as map exhibits to appendix B of the zoning ordinance be approved. And, uh, I'm

484
02:38:30.560 --> 02:38:55.520
going to save Chris the time. This is technically classified as a text amendment, even though we're changing the maps, but it's a text amendment. have to answer any questions. Any questions for staff? Do we need to ask if the public is in approval or opposition on this as well?

485
02:38:55.520 --> 02:39:13.120
Any here to speak in uh favor of this? Anyone here to speak in opposition? >> The city is the applicant on this one as well. Okay, we'll close the public comment portion. I make a motion to uh approve the second

486
02:39:13.120 --> 02:39:29.760
>> the upgrading the maps and the text exhibits. >> All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Ramsey and a second from Commissioner Reed to approve the the request. Chairman Benner, how do you vote? >> I. >> Vice Chair Ramsey, how do you vote?

487
02:39:29.760 --> 02:39:45.200
>> I. >> Commissioner Carr, how do you vote? >> I. >> Commissioner Reed, how do you vote? >> I. >> Commissioner Deose, how do you vote? I. >> Commissioner Hughes, how do you vote? >> I. >> Commissioner Holidayiday, how do you vote? >> I. >> Motion passes 70. And that is the last

488
02:39:45.200 --> 02:39:55.399
case that we're going to hear today. >> Thanks everyone. We are journ. See you next month. Thank you.